Natural Environment Bill — First Reading — 16 December 2025

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement on the Natural Environment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Natural Environment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider this bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 26 June 2026.

This bill ushers in a new era for environmental management in New Zealand. As I said in my remarks on the previous bill, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has tried to do everything under one law: planning, environment, resource management, and city and district plans. It hasn't delivered the prosperity that we were promised back in the early 1990s, and it has failed the environment. To take one simple metric: almost half of New Zealand's total river length was not suitable for swimming between 2016 and 2020 due to unsafe infection risk. To take another example, in 2021, 68 percent of indigenous freshwater-dependent bird species were threatened with extinction or were at the risk of becoming threatened. Many of these species are found nowhere else in the world—that was in 2021.

Historical land use decisions have left communities unnecessarily exposed to natural hazards, making the financial impact of disasters even worse. Cyclone Gabrielle caused $9 billion to $14.5 billion in damage to physical assets.

So we are introducing two clear, focused pieces of legislation: the Planning Bill, which the House has just voted on, and the Natural Environment Bill. The two bills work hand in hand, and the purpose of the bill that we're talking about is to establish a framework for the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment. These bills are the country's opportunity to break free from a system that has shackled us with complexity, duplication, red tape and uncertainty, and confused accountability and decision making, and we are intending to fundamentally change how environmental decisions are made.

The Natural Environment Bill follows a deliberate hierarchy, and I don't want to recanvass what was talked about during the last debate. But the funnel that I talked about in the Planning Bill channels decision making from national goals down to local actions, and we intend the same to work when it comes to the environment. The new system starts with clear goals that focus the system at the top and are then refined through the layers, and if I could just make one comment in relation to the last debate, it was a little bit, I've got to say, disappointing to hear the Greens say that they liked much of what was in the bill but that they had an issue with the wording of the goals and the hierarchy of the goals. Well, fair enough—nothing's perfect.

We're up for the debate around the wording of the goals and exactly how they manifest in practice, and that seems to me to be precisely the sort of issue that you should get into in detail at the select committee. So, despite Julie Anne Genter saying that she thought much of what was in the Planning Bill was really good—and I suspect that she'd say the same about the Natural Environment Bill—they voted against it anyway, which I think says it all, really, which is that the Greens are ultimately the party of protest, not a responsible party of Government.

It's really pleasing to see the Labour Party recognise, despite a bit of heat and light in the last debate—and, I suspect, in this one too—that that this is a big step forward. It picks up on some of what's been developed in the past, it changes it a little bit—or it changes it quite a lot actually—and it is a big step forward for the country.

I won't go through the goals of the Natural Environment Bill because members can read them for themselves, but it is about natural resources within environmental limits, and that is really important. In terms of environmental limits, New Zealanders rightfully share pride in our pristine environment, and we have a joint belief collectively, as a country, in protecting our environment for our children and our children's children, but the RMA has not allowed for the development of our resources within environmental limits. That will change under this bill. Central and local government decision-makers will be required to set binding environmental limits informed by data and community aspirations.

National limits will protect human health, guided by Ministry of Health standards, and regional entities—which are currently regional councils, but it may change—will set ecosystem limits for fresh water, coastal water, land, soils, and indigenous biodiversity, using methods set out in national standards. The Minister can specify minimum levels for ecosystem health limits. There may be circumstances where a council and community consider it appropriate to set less stringent limits than those set by the Minister, and this will be possible in the new system.

The limits will be legally binding and linked to specific areas through natural environmental plans, with resource use capped or managed through action plans. Exceptions will exist for critical infrastructure, and even then, plans must show how limits will be restored over time if they are exceeded. Clear, science-based limits give certainty about what activities are likely to be approved in order to ensure that conversations happen early and incentivise efficient resource use. I do think this will lead to innovation and the reduction of environmental harm, and it will help manage cumulative environmental effects. There will be protection for indigenous biodiversity.

Regional policy statements and plans under the current system often duplicate national direction and add unnecessary complexity. We are scrapping that duplication and replacing it with a single natural environmental plan in every combined regional plan. This plan will implement nationally set environmental limits for human health, and regional entities will be required to set limits for ecosystem health, using the methodology, as I say, set out in national standards.

The intention of the bill is to permit or allow more use of the natural environment, within limits. The new system is about bringing common sense back into planning decision-making. A key part of this is proportionate regulation.

The National Environment Bill requires decision makers to take a proportionate regulatory approach. There are procedural principles to embed good practice and set clear expectations in the new system. Voluntary and farmer - led tools will be used wherever possible, with stronger rules used only when needed. The tools include voluntary action and catchment groups, when resources are not under pressure, and freshwater farm plans, flexible and farmer-led, helping farmers to identify environmental risks on their farm and then plan practical actions to manage these.

One of the things I find most frustrating about the debate between town and country, and rural and urban is that it's our farmers who are often the environment's best friends. It's in their interests to look after the environment, and some of the disdain directed at rural and urban New Zealand and some of the rhetoric about environmental vandalism and environmental damage is, frankly, facile, misleading, wrong, and deeply counter-productive. It's absolutely true that it is in farmers' and growers' best interests to make sure we have a natural environment that we can all be proud of.

This bill establishes a framework to allow voluntary action catchment groups, who do a great job already within the confines of the current system, and more proportionate and flexible approaches at a local level. It allows for action plans, led by councils, for getting back within environmental limits when they've been breached. It allows for land use controls which place restrictions on some activities—for example, vegetation clearance, diffuse discharges, or earthworks.

One issue that I know the select committee is going to want to get into is allocation. Under the RMA, the taking or use of natural resources such as water, coastal space, and discharge capacity is allocated through a combination of permitted activities and consents. Basically, we use a "first in, first served" model. They're allocated in the order they're received, and existing consent holders seeking replacement consents have priority over new applicants. I think it would be fair to say that this is a method of allocation, but it is a method that I think is increasingly recognised as inefficient and inequitable when resources are scarce, which is not always the case. But when they are scarce, it is not always the best allocation mechanism.

The Natural Environment Bill initially retains the RMA's allocation approach, but it also allows for new allocation approaches such as market-based approaches and comparative consenting to be enabled through national instruments. This would be a big change for New Zealand—and I want to flag that right up front—and it is not Government policy right now to do that. But I think it is worth having the debate about those instruments and about those allocation mechanisms, and I'm sure that the select committee will get into it.

That would be a big change for New Zealand and there would be consequences from that, but it is, I think, tolerably clear that the status quo could be better. Making that change is not Government policy, but it does allow the option and the flexibility in this bill for that system to be turned on.

Hon Rachel Brooking: So not the status quo?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it's not the status quo, but if the bill passes, it will become the status quo, and it will allow a discussion and a debate about those issues.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge the hard work of my Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Simon Court, in relation to these bills. I also just want to take a couple of seconds in the closing of the second of these two very important bills for New Zealand's future to acknowledge the hard work of the Ministry for the Environment team and, indeed, the cross-agency team who have worked on these bills at great pressure over the last two years. They have been first-class performers for New Zealand, and they are first-class public servants and first-class New Zealanders. So thank you to the Ministry for the Environment team and, indeed, the whole of the Public Service for helping us get to this point. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I will echo what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just said about the very hard-working public servants involved in the creation of this bill and, of course, the legislation before it, as well—and many of those people are the same people.

I also want to touch on what the Minister was saying about an environment, and how the Resource Management Act has not done well for our environment. I'm pleased to hear him say that, because I've heard the Prime Minister talk about these reforms only in growth turns. If you just say "Yes, yes, yes, yes." to everything, there is a consequence. If you say "Yes" to lots of sediment runoff, then your rivers are going to be polluted and run off into the coastal environment and there will be no fish. These are obvious consequences that we can see. So I was pleased that the Minister was talking about the importance of our taiao.

However, I am worried—I have many worries about this bill that, like the other bill, we do want to take to the select committee and interrogate. I note the Minister's last remarks about allocation systems—again, something we looked at last time as well. The regulatory takings provisions also apply to biodiversity protections. That is of grave concern to the Labour Party because, of course, we face a biodiversity emergency; not just a climate change one. And, of course, the two are very interlinked. So we need to be doing the best that we can to not only maintain our biodiversity—and there is talk in these bills of offsetting—but to improve our biodiversity. This bill does seem to lack ambition in this area of biodiversity. I note that the Minister said, "Well, if the goals aren't right, then that's something that the select committee will look at."—and that's certainly something that we are interested in, that is increasing the ambition for our biodiversity.

I'm also concerned about some ability to avoid bottom lines where they're not met. The point of bottom lines is that you have to meet them. And, of course, where those bottom lines are set is of foremost importance. Those processes are out of this primary legislation and will be done through secondary instruments. So we do need to make sure that we have the settings right. I'm not sure that they are right in these bills, particularly as they relate to environmental bottom lines being set at a regional level and there being no national environmental bottom lines, that the national bottom lines relate to human health—is another issue.

I want to, again, talk about this relationship between this bill and the other bill. I really think there is some thinking—and it was reflected in some of the Minister's comments there about the rural and urban settings and communities—that you can just neatly separate our environment from our urban cities—which, of course, include the environment in them. You cannot do that, and we see that. When you have an urban development in a city, without adequate protections for earthworks, and if there is going to be a flood, what happens to the dirt that's sitting there, that's going to run into the drains and then run into the coast, that is an issue to do with river quality, if it goes into the stream and then it goes into the coast. But it is also an issue to do with urban environments and building the more houses that all of us want here. So we do need these two pieces of legislation talking to each other, and it would be better if they were in the one Act.

I'm also very concerned that we have not seen in these bills much talk about the importance of greenspaces in the urban environment. We're saying that you can do whatever you like on your property and we're not looking at urban amenity, but greenspaces do a lot of heavy lifting around stormwater runoff. And we know, with climate change, that we're going to get more and more rain. So it's important that we have the mechanisms for those greenspaces to (1) be required and (2) be paid for. This is a big issue.

Also, I'm disappointed that these bills do not deal with climate pollution. I think that they could.

In my final seconds, I am disappointed that these bills lack ambition for improving our environment, but I do want people to submit on them and to demonstrate the changes that will enable us to stop the pollution that prevents us from swimming in rivers, from eating our mahana kai, and having safe drinking water.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): On behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki, I stand on behalf of our team as we consider this new legislation, the Natural Environment Bill.

Now, we want to acknowledge Minister Bishop's efforts to keep us updated, and the briefings received from officials—acknowledging, also, it's pleasing to see that water conservation orders are being kept. We acknowledge, also, the reduction in the number of plans as being good progress, and the greater reliance on the national direction is good. But it's just a matter of where we're going with the national direction, of course.

As Te Rōpū Kākāriki, we are a party for Te Tiri, for te taiao, and for te ora o te tangata [the health of people], and we acknowledge that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has not been effective in protecting te taiao. But, you know, we've been in the RMA for the last two years because of the repeals, and now we're back here. As tangata whenua, Te Rōpū Kākāriki can see that Te Tiriti provisions are not strong enough, and reducing the role of iwi Māori in this space is not good. Iwi Māori have been engaging for decades in the RMA, and as marae, as hapū and iwi, we are very used to that system, and saw many layers and many examples of input from iwi Māori and hau kāinga on this bill.

In this bill, it recognises the Crown's responsibility to Te Tiriti, but it's actually weaker than the original RMA. It doesn't go far enough, and, in fact, it's relegating us as tangata whenua to consultation only. Now, it says that this legislation—we've heard that the legislation is there to provide a clearer role for tangata whenua within the new legislation. But that's not true, really, because we don't even have a broad Te Tiriti clause from which we can provide our responses as tangata whenua in this space. We can clearly see that there is a lack of decision-making input that iwi Māori have moving forward.

Now, this legislation is no different to the fast track, where we've seen a hierarchy of Māori: those with Crown mandates; those with settlements; those that have statutory recognition; those with iwi, hapū, environmental management plans. That actually skips the opportunity to provide an inclusive way where iwi Māori—as hau kāinga, whānau, hapū, marae, iwi—can input into the legislation. That's a part of the weariness that we have in what is being provided for iwi Māori moving forward.

Mana whakahono ā rohe have been a space—we've seen a lot of mana whakahono ā rohe come through. In this legislation, it provides space for the existing agreements to be maintained and those that have been initiated previously, but we note there will be no new mana whakahono ā rohe agreements unless it's via a Treaty settlement. That's limiting, again; creating a hierarchy of Māori and how Māori enter this space for the regulation in taiao matters. In this new piece of legislation, many fishhooks—many fishhooks and barriers will arise for iwi Māori. As they come into the submission process, we invite the voice of impacted whānau, hapū, iwi, and marae to provide voice to these very, very real issues that they've experienced over the years. This could be an improvement, if we had strengthened space for us to have shared decision making, shared input, and that all tangata whenua voices are included. That is not guaranteed in what is being provided.

We have some worries in terms of our environmental bottom lines, and when we think about the regulatory relief or the form of compensation to come that prioritises te hunga whai rawa—those who are the property owners—we get worried for councils, because, as they look to establish rules, whether it's for indigenous biodiversity, significant natural areas, or sites of significance to Māori, they're going to have to make payments of compensation. Who has the deep pūkoro [pockets] to pay for this compensation? And a big question that we have when it comes to the cap on rates that councils will have moving forward: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

So there's heaps to do and there's plenty of concerns, and we object. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The Resource Management Act (RMA) has had its vice grip on New Zealand for far too long. Its integrated management approach fostered the falsehood that protecting the environment means resisting and delaying the necessary and inevitable growth. This Natural Environment Bill instead recognises the need for targeted legislation to protect the environment, not by resisting growth but, instead, setting clear rules so that growth occurs within environmental limits.

Intentionally focused on quite different matters, there are core consistencies with the Planning Bill, however, that reflect the common need for a paradigm shift away from the culture of "cants" to a "culture of "can-dos". Each bill has clear goals that set the objectives for the bill. These focus the system, and funnel limits that flow down through the rest of the system—through national policy direction, through standards, environmental limits, natural environment plans, and then—where still needed, although much reduced—the need for permits.

Public involvement will be front loaded into higher-level processes and on important matters such as plan making and limit setting. This means the new permitting process will no longer have to reconcile either reckons or blessings from every Tom, Dick, and Harriet who aren't materially affected and don't live in the district or region.

We also recognise that communities must have flexibility when expressing their priorities and values about the environment that are important to their region. That is why the limit-setting process accommodates communities' social and economic aspirations, as well as their aspirations for the environment, because stewardship is strongest when it recognises human needs, not when it denies them.

The no net loss goal for biodiversity recognises opportunities to drive better biodiversity outcomes through offsetting in places where offsetting investments, biodiversity investments, are more impactful—quite a contrast to the common RMA demand to protect things in place. It's a high-cost, low-benefit outcome, which has not improved the environment.

This RMA rigidity is something that our farmers have felt more broadly, with regulations on their farms, than any other sector. They've often faced costly, disproportionate, and duplicative controls. For this reason, we've focused on a graduated approach to interventions on people's farms, so the Government is only regulating what is necessary. This recognises the great work and the outcomes that our farmers frequently produce through their freshwater farm plans, through voluntary action on-farm, and through the catchment groups that make wonderful efforts in their communities.

As with the Planning Bill, when it does come to imposing land-use controls on farms, regulatory relief will part play an important part in the culture shift we demand. Under the RMA, we've seen property rights trampled by councils imposing significant natural areas with a colouring-in pen on people's private property. While biodiversity protection is a valid cause, it is for the public good none the less, and this practice has, under the RMA, had indiscriminate and disproportionate effects on private property owners. The bill's regulatory relief mechanism for biodiversity controls on private land ensures we have a mechanism that protects biodiversity where it matters, and where a public good is such that councils can justify to their ratepayers the cost of the relief to the affected landowners.

Then we have the low-cost Planning Tribunal. This is intended to combat any legacy RMA inertia, because people need a referee on the field to police things like disproportionate demands for consents, unfettered information requests, and insufficient regulatory relief—all of which have been rife under the RMA, and which must end in the system we're replacing it with.

Finally, sitting atop all of this are the procedural principles that will drive the discipline that has been so lacking in our planning system, with proportionality being of particular importance to drive the culture shift.

The Natural Environment Bill shows how we can protect our environment in a balanced, proportionate, and rational way. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise to offer New Zealand First's full-hearted support for this Natural Environment Bill. Today, we do start the process of unshackling our primary sector and the rural communities that depend on them. In case anyone is under any doubt in this House how important that is, the SOPI report—the Situation Outlook for Primary Industries—this morning, 83 percent—Grant McCallum's holding it up—of New Zealand's merchandise export, some $62 billion. It does not get bigger than that for New Zealand.

So we have to have a planning system that is fit for purpose, and the Resource Management Act was not that. It may have been, at one point—and a well-meaning document and well-intended—but it has metastasised into a planning behemoth, a labyrinth of complex rules and interpretations—some hundred plans across the country. It's been the biggest issue, actually, when we're out and about, talking to farmers—the absolute frustration, absolutely perplexed as to how they were going to get through this system. Tens of thousands of dollars; years, in some cases; spurious disputes and complaints holding up processes.

David Clark was quite outspoken about this. He was brave enough to come out and put his actual situation into the media, to show the general public what it was. Many of us know David, and many of us have been on his farm. He is probably one of the best, if not the best, arable farmer in Canterbury, unable to get through a system. Paradoxically, the only way it probably could have got through under the old system, or the current system before we made our changes the other day to rollover the—in a preliminary manner, the only way it could have got through was converting to dairy. So the rules had completely broken.

So tens of thousands of dollars, a lot of duplication of administration, enormous frustration. There was impingement on property rights and significant natural areas (SNAs) had been referenced, where councils, even if they didn't want to, had to come on and identify areas that may or may not be SNAs, and that land could, essentially, be confiscated. Farmers were not in a position to argue about that. If it's an SNA, it's an SNA. Some of them looked like just a little bit of scrub and manuka, but, nevertheless, if they're an SNA—and this legislation would allow us to compensate. I think the select committee needs to look at that. I've heard the Opposition look at it, where those thresholds are. We don't want to get into a point where we can be extorted as Government, either in the heritage or in the biodiversity space, but there is some room to move there, where if you have had a property right taken, that you might be compensated by no rates, for example, on that particular block of land.

The new rules set in natural directions. They're much clearer. There are still regional plans that will sit under that—17 regional plans where there is a degree of flexibility, and there needs to be. Again, in Canterbury, we had the ridiculous situation where the natural water coming out of the bush in the hills was at a higher level than the current national bottom lines. It was completely unattainable. That was just dispiriting to those farmers and landowners who really did want to maintain their environment but were in an impossible situation. So there is some flexibility there, there is a planning tribunal for a triage.

Of course, we know there's so much good work going on in our catchment groups, the QEII Trust, and farmers will have freshwater farm plans. So there are certainly still checks and balances there and they will be auditable.

The one thing I did want to flag, too, New Zealand First has caution around the market base for the market allocation system. That has been, frankly, a disaster in places like the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia, and parts of America. So the select committee will have to look at that very, very carefully. I know, within the farming sector, that's also pretty controversial, and the select committee will get a range of views on that. So I think we need to be really cautious that we're not going down a Milton Friedman path that doesn't actually work in practice.

But New Zealand First is absolutely delighted to support this bill. Thank you.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I think when we have legislation come to the House, it's really important that we test on those who it most affects how it's going to land, if it's going to land at all. Certainly, hearing from Tainui, this bill is a flop. And when we have someone as esteemed and illustrious as Tainui who have said, "Actually, we're so upset by it, we're going to go to court.", it does caution on what the Government's agenda is really going to be. The bill has been sold to the nation as a reset, like a clean break from the Resource Management Act, but, in fact, it may be for some—it's a modern system that's going to protect some—but for Māori, for iwi, for hapū, for mana whenua, for grassroots communities, the real question is: who's going to hold the power and who bears the risk? Because, certainly, that's some of the questions that we've been hearing.

What the Natural and Built Environment Bill is really doing, at the heart, is centralising control. It replaces local decision-making with a funnel that starts at—guess where?—Wellington, and we've got Ministers that are setting national limits. National policy direction is shaped by these Ministers. Regional plans are locked into decisions for 30-plus years. There's all sorts of things that really alert iwi. When we've got that kind of, I guess, narrative coming out and we're going to be in a situation where we don't get to challenge bad projects and things and the bar has all been messed up, it is really concerning that a bill of this nature is adversely affecting iwi who are being seen as the economic solution for this nation, who lead with great partnerships, and who have shown goodwill and great relationships with many a Government, including reaching out to this one here. Where we've got vague language where Māori rights are being tweaked, again, as I said earlier, the uncertainty that's at risk here, it's really hard to understand who's going to—well, it's really easy, to be honest—benefit from this and who's not.

The bill includes a whole lot of environmental limits, but again, we emphasise to our whānau out there that those limits are being determined by Ministers, and while Ministers can override councils and intervene in plans, environmental protection then becomes worryingly political. For many iwi, whānau, hapū, and mana whenua, we know what happens when politics start to interfere in the values of looking after our environment. Because environment, for Māori, is not something that stands alone; it's something that we're intrinsically related to and connected to.

It is concerning enough for us to be able to caution our whānau out there to be ready to submit and to make sure that we have a really clear understanding about this bill. It has watered down really critical language, such as it talks a lot about Māori "participation". Participation is not the same as partnership as intended in the settlements. What it also does is provide uncertainty for those iwi who have yet to settle, and an assumption that their rights only exist when settlement happens is actually badly incorrect.

So, we are concerned about the way that this bill opens the door to first in, first served, and Treaty rights are not explicitly protected. Again, we risk seeing our taonga turned into commodities for the sake of jobs and economic development. When we're in those situations, we're actually outbidding short-term gain for w'akapapa long-term pain. I think what the bill has failed to do is recognise Māori proprietary rights in freshwater geothermal resources that leave long-standing Māori iwi mana whenua claims unresolved.

Yes, the bill introduces all sorts of changes that could be celebrated by this Government, but it doesn't do anything to respect the Treaty relationship that the Government is obligated to. We don't oppose reform, but we oppose reform that re-centralises power and weakens Māori authority and sidelines communities. A system that claims to protect environment while limiting community voice is never a model that should be celebrated by any Government. It's not transformational, it's actually managerial.

Our message to our whānau is to stay alert, to stay engaged, and do not be silenced by the complexity of the bills before you. We look forward to seeing this come into the House for the second reading, the select committee, and we oppose it as it is.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real privilege to take a call on one of the two most important pieces of legislation this Government will pass. RMA—rarely have three letters come to mean so much to so many and created such anxiety in our society. Everybody is affected by it, hence the importance of getting it right.

If the Planning Bill is about enabling things to get done, the Natural Environment Bill is about making sure we do them responsibly. For too long, environmental protection was bundled up with land-use rules in a way that created confusion and inconsistency. Communities were left unsure what standards applied, and we needed steady, practical direction, with no wild swings that hurt farmers or the environment.

In fact, I will take you back to my maiden speech, where I highlighted that in the 2017 election, it was a tough time to be a farmer. Farmers became the punching bags of the campaign. We were threatened with water tax, were blamed for all the water-quality issues in the country, and were continuously used as a pincushion by the left. Farmers' concerns were so strong that it led to me organising a protest in Morrinsville. The stress and worry that flowed through the rural communities at the time reminded me of the mid-1980s and the Rogernomics regime, when it was in full swing and we were called a sunset industry. That's rather ironic when today, we pick up the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report to see how important it is for our country.

All these experiences have taught me that while change is inevitable, it is the job of leaders to take people with them during periods of change, and it's also important to work on a cross-parliamentary consensus for long-term issues like water quality. As farmers, all we ask for is a clear direction of travel that is achievable while maintaining a profitable business. Having the pendulum swing wildly every time there is a change of Government is not good for anyone, and it's certainly not good for the environment.

The bill, using national policy direction, will set clear, binding limits for air, water, land and soils, and indigenous biodiversity, with national standards that councils can apply consistently. Decisions must stay within these limits using proportionate, risk-based planning. It simplifies permits and lifts the threshold for notification so that participation focuses on those materially affected. The outcome is much more certainty. Farmers, agriculture operators, and developers can plan with confidence inside clear limits. Councils will spend less time relitigating and more time monitoring outcomes and enforcing rules. We have the option of a national regulator to ensure compliance is consistent across the country.

It really feels appropriate at this point to go back to a meeting I attended recently at the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall in mid-Canterbury with a whole lot of farming families. These were just farming families, intergenerational families that have been working the land for many, many years. Here they were, all concerned about their future. Why? Because they were faced with huge cost to try and get a consent to do what they'd always been doing, and doing it well. It got to the point—and it was highlighted, as has been mentioned previously, by David Clark and his family. He had got to the point where they were struggling to get through a process for a consent that would only be for a few years, and what was that going to mean? It got to the point where David was even thinking of saying to his boys, "Don't bother going farming." Well, we need strong farming families in this country, and we don't want to lose them.

The transition will be practical. National rules will apply early, consents are extended to avoid churn, and councils will work to timely, proportionate, cost-effective principles. By 2029, the full system will be in place. This bill is about balance, protecting what matters while enabling prosperity. For Northland, that means healthy rivers and coasts, confidence for agriculture and farming, and rules that make sense on the ground. Certainty, consistency, and less stress—that's what people are asking for.

As deputy chair of the Environment Committee, I'm looking forward to hearing from sectors and individuals as they make submissions on this bill, and I encourage them to do so. Your insights will help us get this right, so the system works for communities, for business, and for the environment. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member mentioned his maiden speech—you're allowed to read your maiden speech.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. We're considering, this afternoon, two bills that, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform himself has said, largely go hand in hand, given the crossover between the two—you can't have one without the other. There are many legitimate considerations that the select committee will need to turn its mind to as part of considering this bill. A couple of them have been touched on by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, particularly around the biodiversity efforts, which really cannot be compromised, when we look at the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, where the flora—and, within that, the fauna is a pretty special part of who we are. So I hope that, alongside the urban amenities stuff, is something that the select committee does turn its mind to.

I want to step back a bit and again reiterate the lack of active progress that the Government have been prepared to take over the last two-year window. There were moves afoot to address the concerns that the Government have indicated, but yet again, for the last two years, they've done nothing but sit on their hands and complain about the Resource Management Act and simply cancel, in the first hundred days, what was an answer to that.

Just last week we were, in this House, considering through all stages a piece of legislation that really did indicate that the Government were certainly not prepared. The duration of consents being extended—that's what that bill was last week. Again, why did Minister Bishop and the Government not foreshadow that this was going to be an issue? Why did they have to displace these two bills in favour of that one, when they knew that this was certainly in the mix? They've had two years to be thinking about this, and it's disappointing that that hasn't actually come out the way that perhaps it should have.

There's been a wee bit of conversation from the Minister already, today, about the need for an extended select committee process. I am pleased to hear that the Hon Mark Patterson also concedes that there are issues around the compensation element that councils or the local government sector would be required to consider. I do hope that—well, I'm certain that the select committee will hear from a number of submitters in that particular space, because the stark reality is this: we are in a situation and we are heading in a direction where the current Government are basically making it very, very difficult for local government, as a sector, to be able to seriously consider things like compensation—where is the line? What does that practically mean for someone who is an applicant who, under this particular regime, would be required to be compensated, through the whole range of the different scope of options there? So I'm pleased that New Zealand First have indicated that, really, the Government and others need to turn their mind to this through the select committee process. There needs to be an understanding as to where the threshold lies. So we look forward to hearing a little bit more in that particular space.

One of the things that hasn't been sort of touched on in any great depth is that the level of involvement of mana whenua, but also consideration of wāhi tapu and other sites of cultural significance. These are important things that I'm sure will be part of the select committee's deliberations. But, again, I do hope that the select committee has an open mind when it comes to considering those sorts of things.

The second leg of the double, in terms of this bill, really does have quite an active role for regional councils, and there is quite an element of uncertainty there, given the recent announcements by the Government as to what the future for regional councils will actually mean. So while the Minister and others have, for example, talked about allocation rights and what particular role that might play, regional councils do actually have a role, in terms of what's drafted here, around the allocation of natural resources. Now, yes, that would lead to not a consent but a permit, I understand—it's a bit of a change in language there. But I do think it's important that the sort of direction that the Government have signalled for regional councils, and the future thereof, is a consideration that the select committee is able to think about. Because if we have a bill that's talking around the role of regional councils—that, under this Government, may not exist in the future; that's where they want it to head—I think there needs to be a level of agility around the considerations in that particular space.

So there are a number of factors in this bill; there were a number of factors in the previous bill. Again, my concluding comments are that I hope that the select committee is open to considering all the views so that we get a good piece of legislation on both bills.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real privilege to be able to speak on the Natural Environment Bill. This bill, along with the one that we've just discussed—the Planning Bill—sets up the framework for absolute change in how we develop in this country.

As has been mentioned by others, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been a real handbrake on development and change and just an incredible imposition on private land use. Nothing more really highlighted this than talking with one of my constituents about the problems and the process that he is going through in trying to build a little cottage on his land. It's not something that anybody else could even see, but his consent was going to be declined because of an intermittent waterway that the regional council thought was going to be a problem. Well, that intermittent waterway was a ditch that he had dug 20 years ago. This is the kind of thing that is also a problem for other farmers in Canterbury, where ditches, in particular, have been identified as intermittent waterways by Environment Canterbury. That's been a particular problem when people have been trying to renew consents for farming.

It actually blew my mind to hear that farmers needed to reconsent and reapply for a consent, in some cases, every seven years to do something that their family have been doing for a nearly a hundred years. It actually has cost our farming sector hundreds and thousands, if not millions, of dollars to reapply for these consents. It has been a complete embuggerance.

Now, in Banks Peninsula, we are very conservation-minded. We have some unique indigenous wildlife by flora and fauna. It was really the collective actions of landowners—farmers, in particular—that came together to form the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust over 30 years ago, which has led to some remarkable resurgence and recloaking of the Banks Peninsula area in indigenous flora, in particular, and that had absolutely nothing to do with the RMA. It had everything to do with the energy, will, and, frankly, the investment of the farmers and landowners.

I celebrate this change. I believe that the environmental limits that will be set within the framework of this bill will be sensible, and also with the emphasis particularly on human health and the public health effects, this will be an evidence-based and scientifically based framework that will enable the development and building of infrastructure and buildings that we want to see, including, of course, the development of renewable energy that we want to see in this country. At the same time, it is protecting the real things that need to be protected, rather than things like the visual amenity of people driving through the Mackenzie Country, which has prevented some of the potential development of solar farms in the Mackenzie Country. These are the sort of things that the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill will enable, and they will prevent those ridiculous things from happening.

These two pieces of legislation that we're discussing this afternoon are landmark and completely transformative pieces of legislation. I'm sure that the Environment Committee will have a huge range of feedback from communities, from iwi, and from everybody involved in this, and I believe that they will take this seriously and work very collegially together to come up with a wonderful report from the chair sitting in front of me—it will be, I'm sure, a very great piece of work from that committee. So I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, did the member use the word "embuggerance"? I love—it's great to increase our vocabulary. Thank you very much.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's been slightly frustrating sitting on this side of the House and listening to speeches from members opposite echoing the Prime Minister and Catherine Wedd, the chair of the Environment Committee, who keeps saying that no Government has tackled the Resource Management Act (RMA), when it's clearly not the case.

I want to actually echo a little bit some of the points that my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty made in his contribution to the previous bill, actually, where he was absolutely right. This is a pure vanity project by this Government because members have stood up one after the other and talked about how bad the RMA is, how terrible it is for farmers, and how terrible it is when it comes to development and progress.

The thing is that no one is disagreeing with that. When Labour was in Government, we felt the same way, that the RMA was holding us back as a country when it comes to both development and ensuring better environmental protections. That's really what led to the two bills that became pieces of legislation, the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act that Labour put in place. David Parker worked for six years to finesse the details around that legislation that would have cut approval times for housing and infrastructure to be built. It condensed over 100 different regional plans down to just 16 plans.

And what did we have? The minute the National Party took office, the Government decided to repeal those two Acts and go back to the RMA that members today have been waxing lyrical about how bad it is. So we need to just take a moment to appreciate that this Government that is talking about how bad the RMA was and how they're the first Government to tackle the RMA was the very Government that repealed the legislation that would have progressed this nation and took us back to the RMA. It's just so that they can now put in their first statement of the Natural Environment Bill that this bill will replace the Resource Management Act 1991, conveniently forgetting that step in the middle where there were two bills.

Then one member from the benches opposite decided to counter some of the arguments made on this side of the House. Ryan Hamilton decided to say that the reason that they repealed those two bills was because they couldn't put lipstick on a pig. That was basically saying that those two Acts, the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act were fundamentally flawed—that is what that means.

Then you would think that this Government, having repealed those two Acts that Ministers and the Ministry for the Environment worked on for six whole years, would replace it with legislation that was fundamentally different from the two Acts that they repealed. Is that the case? Not really, because the two bills that we have and are debating in this House are not fundamentally different. They've got a whole bunch of bits that were in the two other pieces of legislation that Labour developed. Really, the key differences would be the emphasis on property rights, perhaps the goals set out in the national direction, and the purpose statements.

In the time that I have left, I thought I'd take a little bit of a view of what people are saying about these two bills. One is that the implications of splitting these two bills in the way that this Government has done kind of says that they feel that development doesn't have an impact on the natural environment, that you can put these two things in two separate boxes and treat them differently, but that's not the case.

Forest & Bird says that too. Splitting land use planning from environmental management could lead to duplicated processes, complex cross-references, and more litigation as councils and communities try to reconcile the two Acts with potentially conflicting purposes. That comes to the crux of this whole exercise. What we will want to see at the Environment Committee while we hear from submitters is how we will work to ensure that we progress development on one end, sure, but that legislation also protects environmental purposes and biodiversity, and we'll be keeping an eye out for that. Hopefully the submission period won't be truncated by the chair again.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): The Resource Management Act (RMA) has been around for near on 35 years now. Consent processes play a central role in regulating how land, air, the coastal environment, and our freshwater is used. While it was originally designed to balance development with environmental protection, the system has long been criticised as being complex, costly, and inefficient.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Here we go again.

DAVID MacLEOD: Just what has been said before. As a result, successive Governments have sought to reform and make it more effective, but improvements have been marginal at best, if not elusive. One of the most significant challenges the current system has is its complexity. Obtaining a consent often requires expert reports, legal advice, and consultation with multiple stakeholders, often leading to sometimes very high cost. This poses difficulties, particularly to small developers, community groups, and individuals who lack the resources to navigate the process.

Alongside cost, time delays is another recurring issue. Consents can take months, often years, to secure, and uncertainty around approval time lines can discourage an investment and hold up projects, often with loss of job opportunities. Inefficient consent processes adversely impact all New Zealanders.

Another problem lies in the inconsistency of decision making. Different councils interpret and apply the RMA in different ways, meaning that similar projects may face very different requirements depending on which region. This undermines confidence in the fairness of the system and contributes to inefficiency. Alongside is the strong emphasis on public participation, which, while valuable for democracy, often creates further delays. Submissions and appeals can be used strategically by competitors and lobby groups, which, at times, shifts the process away from the intended focus of genuine environmental concerns.

Providing opportunities for genuine concerns about proposals to be aired and heard is an important part of our democracy. We must also recognise that mana whenua have a special kaitiakitanga relationship with our environment, one that is within the Treaty of Waitangi. However, we must look to more timely, collaborative, and effective ways of incorporating diverse views and getting decisions made with less adversarial and sometimes cynical behaviours where time-delaying tactics are used to frustrate proposals contrary to the broader public interests. New Zealand is littered, unfortunately, with these examples.

Underlying all these problems is the ongoing tension between development and environmental protection. Some critics argue that the consent process makes it too easy for environmentally harmful projects to go ahead, while others contend that it blocks much-needed housing, infrastructure, and primary industry activities which are at the heart of our economy. This lack of clarity has fuelled calls for fundamental reform for quite some time.

In response, major changes are proposed with these two bills that we have before us today, and we are reading the first reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill here now. Together, these aim to simplify the system with far less consents required, provide more consistency across regions, and ensure stronger environmental safeguards.

In conclusion, the resource consent process in New Zealand has long struggled with complexity, with delays, and even decision making creating barriers for both development and environmental protection. However, the reforms currently being implemented signal a major shift towards a system that is more efficient, consistent, and resilient in the face of environmental challenges.

Inevitably, trade-offs and compromises in public policy decisions are needing to be made, but if resource consent decisions are made through better processes, then we can achieve our aim of a first-class economy and a world-class environment. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That member could probably benefit from reading a little less of his speech as well, just for the future.

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

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Natural Environment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to the Environment Committee

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): I move, That the Natural Environment Bill be reported to the House by 26 June 2026.

Motion agreed to.

Home Page | Parliament | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media