Local Body Reorganisation vs. The Environment
safeguards under threat
While Forest and Bird Waikato Regional Conservation Manager Elvisa Van der Leden is concerned with RMA reform through the Planning Bill and Natural Resources Bill, there are other worries too.
“It's the same with the Conservation Amendment Bill though. We're trying to make sure that the purpose of the bill is not economic development because what does that mean? There's no detail around how DOC would prioritise economic development, there's no hierarchy around what sort of economic development (would be allowable), and also what sort of protections would there be for the waterways in terms of building infrastructure, or whatever, on conservation land that affects our freshwater ecosystems.”
Attacks on regional rules
Then there are the Regional Council-based rules that Van der Leden and other local body politicians thought were watertight, after 14 years in the making, but are now being diluted by central government.
The Waikato Regional Council’s Plan Change 1 (PC1) – recently backed by the Environment Court – is the first step in an 80-year scheme to restore the Waikato and Waipā catchments that gives effect to Te Ture Whaimana, a legal entity created through Treaty of Waitangi settlement that sets the strategy for restoring the river.
In a release on August 20, the Waikato River Authority (WRA) said it was “deeply disappointed” by the government’s decision to defer PC 1 requirements until 2032, saying it will set back progress towards restoring the Waikato and Waipā Rivers within the agreed 80-year timeframe.
Under the deferral, Farm Environment Plan (FEPs) and their associated requirements for farmers to adopt best environmental practices to mitigate contaminant losses will be put on hold until 2032.
The release said: “The WRA acknowledged that controls on land-use change and intensification through resource consents remain in place. It also noted the government’s commitment that any future Natural Environment Plan for the region must have particular regard to PC1, recognising the unique statutory role of Te Ture Whaimana. However, Co-Chair Danny Loughlin questioned whether the government’s assurances could be relied upon, given its decision to defer PC1.
“We take some comfort that the work behind PC1 is not being erased and that whatever comes next must have regard to it. But ‘have regard to’ in a plan that is still years away is not the same as “giving effect” on the ground today,” Mr Loughlin said.”
Media coverage of Tainui’s reaction on August 21 to the deferral was stronger – with the iwi quoted in a NZ Herald story as describing it a “complete and total betrayal”.
In response Chris Bishop, Minister responsible for RMA Reform, justified the government’s actions as intended to prevent Waikato farmers from facing “duplicative consenting requirements”, given the legislation was set to be replaced. The PC1 provisions needed to be paused because they were “costly, complex and duplicative.”
While Shane Jones said the “supreme law-making power” of Parliament superseded “any Treaty of Waitangi settlement”.
“I know Tainui iwi see Te Ture Whaimana as an important legal ingredient in the Waikato River mix. However, we cannot indulge appetites for expensive river regulations that worsen cost-of-living outcomes.”
The story quoted Tainui chair Tuku Morgan as not convinced, saying using the cost-of-living to justify halting the PC1 provisions was “bulls**t”. He said farmers had received strong returns recently – and farmers and corporates like Fonterra had contributed to the development of PC1.
Van der Leden is of the same mind as Loughlin and Morgan, saying central government’s weakening of PC1 in the Waikato, and undermining of Horizons Regional Council Plan Change 2 is not a ‘technical tidy up’.
“It's a substantive weakening of the rules that hold polluters to account.
“It undermines confidence in every other regional national planning process still underway. We understand farmers want certainty, but so do the communities that fish, swim, and gather kai from these rivers.
“The way to deliver that certainty is to maintain the rules, developed through years of evidence, consultation, and negotiation rather than stripping them out, at the final stretch and hope a future system delivers better results.”
Background Information:
After months of toing and froing between councils in the Waikato Region, on August 6 the Taupō District Council rejected being included in a Head Start outline proposal for a Western Waikato Unitary Authority (put forward by Waikato, Waipā and South Waikato District Councils).
It informed central government that, if required to amalgamate in future, it would prefer to form a sub-regional unitary authority and stated a preference for joining with Ruapehu, Waitomo and Ōtorohanga district councils.
While the government is now considering which Head Start proposals will progress to the next stage, with Cabinet decisions expected in September, councils not using Head Start will be subject to the compulsory Back Stop process (after the 2028 local body elections). Cabinet is expected to announce final arrangements for the Back Stop approach in 2027.
Above article written by Chris Marshall. Funding for this work was provided by BayTrust. This is a follow up article to last week’s post.