sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The Government is warning regional councils to take note of looming changes to resource management law when making 10-year plans which could be expensive to unravel later

Rural News / news
The Government is warning regional councils to take note of looming changes to resource management law when making 10-year plans which could be expensive to unravel later
[updated]

The Government is warning councils to take note of its views on reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA).  

The warning comes as tensions simmer over a legal overhang concerning environmental rules on fresh water which were passed by the previous government.

The rules are opposed by the current government but have not been formally repealed. Federated Farmers says their looming demise means councils should not throw away good money starting to implement them now. But councils are faced with the problem of enforcing the law as it is, not as it might be. 

They also worry about their obligations to develop 10-year plans which might span several different governments with different views.  

The whole issue is complicated by internal divisions within councils and by a desire by some councillors to get an environmental legacy in place before local government elections next year.

The rules from a National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management issued in 2020. They required councils to make rules limiting contaminants and implementing Maori concepts under the title Te Mana O Te Wai.  

The current government argues the rules are complicated, bureaucratic and expensive, and has unveiled the broad outline of new resource management law which will supplant the existing system. . 

Federated Farmers says three councils have been charging ahead with new plans under the original policy: Environment Canterbury, Otago Regional Council and Environment Southland. 

“It’s completely outrageous what’s going on with these regional councils,” Federated Farmers’ national vice president, Colin Hurst says.

“We’ve got a situation where a number of councils around the country are deliberately choosing to ignore the direction of central government and push ahead with plan changes." 

“These councils are needlessly wasting ratepayers’ money.”

The Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds says she is concerned about this problem and has written to local authorities making her views plain.    

“I am having regular conversations with councils," she says.

"It would be wise for them to take the extra time to fully consider the changes that the Government will be bringing into avoid unnecessary costs and compliance duplication for ratepayers."

Simmonds notes that one of the three councils has taken the right steps. 

“Environment Southland recently confirmed its approach to improving freshwater and it involves a focus on working with communities and delaying the plan change to set limits and targets until the end of 2027 or earlier if possible.”  

Simmonds has also taken the opportunity of repeating the plans for RMA reform which were outlined by Ministers on Friday.

“Our objective for resource management reform is simple – we want to make it easier to get things done in New Zealand," Simmonds says.  

She says Phase One of the reforms has already been done:  repealing the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act.

Phase Two was the Fast-track Approvals Bill, to create a one-stop-shop for approvals, along with targeted changes to the RMA to help farming, aquaculture and other sectors.  

“Phase Three involves the Government’s commitment to replace the RMA with legislation premised on the enjoyment of property rights," she says. 

“In the meantime, the deadline for councils to notify their freshwater plan changes has been extended by an extra three years, to 31 December 2027."            

Of the three councils, Environment Southland has already accepted the 2027 deadline, but remains committed to water reform “to meet community expectations.”.

Environment Canterbury says its approach is to incorporate flexibility into its plans to cope with central Government changes rather than putting its plans on hold.  It adds the plans deal with “Canterbury-specific issues” which will stand on their own merit.  

Otago Regional Council says good quality freshwater is a priority.

“We have appreciated recent engagement with Ministers and have a number of things to consider before a decision is made on whether or not to notify a new land and water plan. This decision is scheduled to be made in late October.”  

The Government for its part says the aim is to "get Wellington out of farming."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

13 Comments

Wern't they on about local control? Why would the councils wait for direction  form the central govt ?

Up
7

Because they are entirely ideology and lobby-driven. 

Not a moral fibre anywhere. 

Ask what the need is for, and it's something sustainable - something maintainable in the long term. 

That is not fossil-dependent ag, as practiced. So fed farmers are on the wrong side of truth. 

Pretty simple. 

Up
5

Quite simple, if the Minister's want to change the Freshwater NPS 2020 - they need to get on with it.  Problem is they have no idea how to 'sell' lower water quality standards to the public.  They tried it once before with a "wade-able" river quality standard and that fell flat on its face as a result of public backlash;

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/325101/swimmable,-not-wadeable-gre…

 

Up
12

Quite simple by repealing the 2020 NPS and reverting to 2017 NPS 

Job done 

Up
3

Yes, it's not difficult - no matter what they decide to do.

Up
1
Up
0

I thought they promised that for every new law, they would cut 2.

Up
4

I'm sure the Minister of regulation will sort that.*giggles*

Up
7

"Bishop said the RMA had “hindered economic growth and productivity, whilst failing to improve the environment”.

So we're just gonna ditch any pretence of environmental protection and go for growth.

Up
5

From the link: 

"One of the two new laws will focus on managing the environmental effects from activities, while the other will focus on enabling urban development and infrastructure."

Up
1

Yea exactly what I said.

Up
2

.

Up
1