EDS asked political parties about potential law reform across resource management, fast-track and conservation. Responses received from National, Labour, the Greens and Opportunity are summarised below. At the time of issuing its release, EDS had not received responses from ACT, New Zealand First or Te Pāti Māori.
Fast-track approvals and section 85
EDS is concerned that the Fast-track Approvals Act gives insufficient weight to environmental protection and public participation. In particular, Section 85 needs an effective environmental bottom line requiring projects to be declined where environmental harm is unacceptable.
National supports retaining the fast-track regime and explicitly commits to retaining Section 85 unchanged. It says the regime is delivering economic benefits while continuing to protect the environment.
Labour would amend the Act to put environmental protection, public benefit and public participation at its core. Its response does not separately address Section 85 or specify the environmental test it would introduce, but it has criticised that provision previously.
The Greens would repeal the Act, and, as a priority, revoke fast-track consents for new coal, gold and seabed mining projects. They would repeal Section 85 and require bottom-line environmental protections in any fast-track projects.
Opportunity would amend the Act, reduce ministerial powers and give greater weight to environmental and climate outcomes and local infrastructure impacts. It would amend Section 85 to require refusal where a project breaches genuine, science-based environmental bottom lines, particularly where damage would be serious or irreversible.
Planning Act and Natural Environment Act
EDS is concerned that the new planning framework weakens environmental protection and public participation, and fragments decisions that need to be considered in an integrated way. Reform is needed to provide enforceable environmental limits and a coherent approach to managing development and its effects.
National would retain and implement both Acts. It says they will enable economic growth while protecting the environment.
Labour opposes the Acts but would amend them rather than undertake another repeal-and-replace exercise. It says the laws need to work better for the environment and communities.
The Greens would either repeal or significantly amend both Acts to embed environmental bottom lines and improve integration. They remain open to which approach would best achieve that result.
Opportunity would retain both Acts but pause implementation while a cross-party select committee develops amendments. Its proposals include making development goals subject to safeguarding the environment’s life-supporting capacity, strengthening environmental limits and biodiversity protection, enabling consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public participation.
Regulatory relief
EDS is concerned that regulatory relief provisions in the new laws will impose substantial costs on councils and discourage necessary protection of indigenous biodiversity, outstanding landscapes and sites of significance to Māori. Those pressures would be particularly acute for councils facing rates caps.
National would retain the provisions.
Labour, the Greens and Opportunity would repeal them. Labour describes them as unworkable. Opportunity says genuinely unreasonable rules could instead be addressed through a revised version of the Resource Management Act’s reasonable-use mechanism.
Conservation Amendment Bill
EDS supports conservation law reform but considers that the Bill as drafted would weaken the priority given to conservation, public participation and independent oversight of decisions affecting public conservation land.
National is committed to passing the Bill, while remaining open to amendments following the select committee’s recommendations. Its response points to the withdrawal of the land exchange and disposal provisions as an example of its willingness to make changes.
Labour would amend the legislation to ensure conservation remains DOC’s primary focus and public conservation land is protected.
The Greens would withdraw the Bill in its entirety. If it proceeds, they would seek changes to ensure conservation remains the overarching purpose.
Opportunity would oppose the Bill unless significantly amended. It seeks to retain conservation as DOC’s primary purpose, meaningful roles for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards, genuine public participation, and stronger criteria for land exchange and disposal.
DOC’s proposed economic development function
Proposed section 6(ea) would give DOC a function of prioritising economic opportunities and commercial use and development of the land and resources it manages. EDS considers that conservation must remain DOC’s overriding priority, with commercial activities subject to that purpose.
National would amend the provision, taking account of select committee feedback. It wants wording that supports enduring conservation outcomes while also recognising opportunities for environmental, social, cultural and economic use and development.
Labour’s response commits to retaining conservation as DOC’s primary focus but does not separately state whether it would remove or amend section 6(ea).
The Greens and Opportunity would remove the provision, or repeal it if enacted.
More on EDS’s work on resource management reform.