Parliament Debates Resource Management Reform Bill: A Step Towards Economic Growth or Environmental Risk?

In a pivotal session in the New Zealand House of Representatives on December 15, 2023, lawmakers engaged in a spirited debate over the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. Presented by Chris Bishop, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, the bill aims to reform the country's resource management system as part of a broader coalition government initiative focused on economic growth and productivity.

A Phased Approach to Reform

Bishop emphasized that this legislation marks the second phase in a comprehensive plan to overhaul New Zealand’s Resource Management Act (RMA). The initial phase involved repealing previous, convoluted reforms. Currently, the focus is on refining existing laws to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for sectors like renewable energy and housing while maintaining environmental safeguards.

The bill seeks to introduce significant changes, such as expediting consent processes for renewable energy projects by mandating a one-year decision window and extending default consents to 35 years. Additionally, it proposes reforms in the housing sector by allowing councils to opt out of medium-density residential standards (MDRS), provided they can demonstrate adequate housing growth over the next three decades.

Divergent Views on Economic Growth vs. Environmental Protection

The debate highlighted divergent views on whether these changes strike an appropriate balance between economic development and environmental protection. Supporters argue that the bill addresses critical bottlenecks in resource management, which have long been seen as impediments to growth. Critics, however, warn of potential risks to environmental protections.

Rachel Brooking from Labour voiced concerns about the government's approach, arguing that the bill could undermine previously established safeguards against environmental degradation. She criticized the pace and process of legislation, suggesting it lacked adequate scrutiny and community involvement.

Scott Willis of the Green Party was unequivocal in his opposition, describing the bill as poorly drafted with provisions inconsistent with Green policy priorities. He expressed skepticism about the housing growth framework, warning that unchecked development could lead to adverse environmental impacts.

Indigenous Rights at Stake?

The debate also brought to light concerns from Te Pāti Māori representatives like Tākuta Ferris. Ferris argued that the bill diminishes Māori rights and influence in consenting processes for sites of cultural significance, potentially violating commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Conversely, Andrew Hoggard from ACT supported giving councils more autonomy over medium-density residential standards, emphasizing local governance. He also highlighted farm plans as a means to reduce regulatory burdens while ensuring environmental responsibility among farmers.

A Path Forward?

The bill has been referred to the Environment Committee for further scrutiny. As lawmakers deliberate on the nuances of this legislation, questions remain about its long-term implications for both economic development and environmental stewardship.

David Parker from Labour supported the initial reading but cautioned against legislative instability. He advocated for more inclusive approaches that respect Māori rights, suggesting a need for deeper engagement with Indigenous perspectives in resource management decisions.

In conclusion, while the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill represents a significant step towards reforming New Zealand's resource management framework, it also poses challenges that require careful consideration. As lawmakers continue to debate its merits, the balance between fostering economic growth and protecting the environment remains at the forefront of discussions.

The motion to read the bill for the first time was agreed upon unanimously on December 15, 2023, with subsequent referral to the Environment Committee for further review and consideration.