The Governments Fast-track and fresh water Proposals
A paper by Marinie Prickett (University of Otago) and Dr Mike Joy (VUW) on these key issues with suggestions for response. Letter follows:
Briefing on the new Government’s environmental law proposals and the serious threat they pose to freshwater
Kia ora koutou,
We are writing to you with important information on the Government’s proposals to rewrite environmental law and remove protections for freshwater. We do so because there has been very little public discussion or media coverage of the proposals, and the Government is moving swiftly. Furthermore, information provided by the Government has not been shared with all those with working on or interested in freshwater.
The latest information provided by the Government (in a letter to an unclear list of stakeholders from Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop sent on Wednesday last week) suggests a very short timeframe for feedback on proposed changes – two weeks. So, along with providing a briefing on the proposals, we also make two suggestions for useful and effective actions you and/or your organisation can take right now.
- Write to the Minister Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for RMA Reform, Chris.Bishop@parliament.govt.nz
- Inform others
More details on these actions in the last section of this letter.
You are receiving this letter because at some time in the past decade either Mike and/or Marnie has had contact with you over your concern for freshwater.
The strength of many public voices on freshwater issues has successfully achieved change in the past and we believe it could have a positive effect again if we react to these proposals in a timely way.
The new Government’s proposals for freshwater and related policy
Overarching resource management law
The coalition Government outlined in its coalition agreement documents its intention to severely weaken environmental protections and their associated human health protections beginning with overarching resource management law.
At the end of last year, under urgency, the new Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and Spatial Planning Act 2023 were repealed.
The new Government now intends to reform the Resource Management Act 1991, having committed in its coalition agreements to replace it “with new resource management laws premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle” (National – ACT coalition agreement, p. 6).
Fast-track Minister-controlled consent process and irrigation projects
“I am proposing a new bill which draws on the previous fast-track regimes and that will reflect the following:
• The new fast-track process will be contained in a standalone Act with its own
purpose statement.
• Locally, regionally and nationally significant infrastructure and development projects will be prioritised.
• There will be a process for the responsible minister to refer projects for acceptance
into the fast-track process, and the bill will also contain a list of projects that will be
first to have their approvals granted.
• Referred projects will go to an Expert Panel, which will have limited ability to decline a project once referred and will apply any necessary conditions to ensure adverse effects of the project are managed.”
What this means in practice is that the Government will produce a list of projects that will by-pass normal democratic processes, with likely little to no formal avenue for tangata whenua and wider public input or opposition. A number of these projects are likely to be large-scale irrigation schemes, based on the coalition agreements’ commitments to increasing water storage.
A ‘standalone Act with its own purpose’ means the Government is intending that these fast-tracked projects would avoid having to be consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act, which is (among other things) “safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems”. The ‘standalone Act” for fast-track projects is likely to have as its purpose “increasing productivity” or something related. If this is allowed to progress, projects are very likely to be given the go ahead with little or no environmental consideration.
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020
In the short term, the Government first intends to (though it is not entirely clear how) disapply Te Mana o te Wai from the fast-track consents. In the medium term, the Government has said it intends to replace it the NPS-FM 2020 (signalled in the coalition agreements) and has particularly emphasised that they will either remove or “rebalance” Te Mana o te Wai. They have said this process of replacing the NPS-FM is expected to take 18 to 24 months.
Rebalancing Te Mana o te Wai would have the same effect as removing it. Te Mana o te Wai is the central decision-making framework that, along with its principles, establishes a “hierarchy of obligations” requiring councils to prioritise the health of waterways and people’s drinking water over commercial interests.
It has been beginning to have effect in consenting, with a consent application for over 8 billion litres of water per year turned down in Hawke’s Bay last year on the basis of Te Mana o te Wai. The commissioners at the time noted in their decision that, in previous versions of the NPS-FM, “no strong weighting was given to the protection of freshwater values versus its use and development”.
We have further concerns for the National Objectives Framework, the part of the NPS-FM that establishes bottom lines for contaminants in waterbodies. Indications from Government suggest that they would like to remove or weaken these on the basis that “local communities get the opportunity to customise and to have nuanced processes in place that ensure that at a community level they can be making decisions that are appropriate for that community”. This emphasis on community and “catchment-level” decision-making would be unnecessary if you intended to keep the National Objectives Framework as it is because community involvement and catchment-scale management are already how the NPS-FM functions. What this narrative suggests is wanting to remove bottom lines to allow the most well-resourced in society to pressure councils for whatever level of pollution works for their commercial interests.
The risks to human and ecological health of these proposals
For most, the risks of these proposals will be clear. However, we provide a brief outline here that highlights issues at a high level and is not exhaustive. The associated threats to equity, biodiversity, resilience to and mitigation of climate impacts, democratic process, etc. should be inferred.
The elevation of the enjoyment of property rights in resource management is very concerning as the health and wellbeing of communities and the natural environment simply cannot be protected on this basis. Resource management is applied, by necessity, across properties and public land to ensure that people and the environment avoid acute and cumulative impacts from individuals, businesses, or other agencies.
Fast-track consenting that facilitates irrigation schemes, particularly when they are not subject to any resource management law, bottom lines, or public scrutiny, will undoubtedly mean further intensification of agricultural systems and land use. This will mean more pollution to waterbodies and less water in waterways. Irrigation schemes have had extreme impacts on water quality and people’s drinking water sources in parts of the country, particularly Canterbury. Dams themselves also impact the health of waterbodies.
Removing or “rebalancing” Te Mana o te Wai will mean a return to the prioritisation or dominance of commercial interests over the public needs for a healthy environment and safe drinking water. There is ample evidence in of the health of drinking water sources and even minimal ecological health considerations being overridden in favour of intensification of land use. Without the Te Mana o te Wai legal weight given to drinking water and ecological health, commercial interests can use their resources to stay in planning processes as long as they need to achieve the outcomes they want at regional level.
What to do right now
Write to the Minister
The Government has suggested they will only allow an extremely short time frame for feedback on the fast-track consenting. The letter from Chris Bishop states:
“Details of the fast-track consenting regime and NPS-FM changes will be worked through over the next month, and your input into this process would be appreciated.
My officials will be in touch to seek a meeting with you to discuss the proposals and understand your perspective.
All feedback provided by the 12 February 2024 will inform the new [fast-track consent] bill to be introduced to Parliament in early March.”
Given this pace of decision-making, the most important action you and/or your organisation could take now is to write to the Minister to state your opposition to the Fast-track consent Bill and to replacing the NPS-FM 2020, removing or “rebalancing” Te Mana o te Wai.
Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for RMA Reform, Chris.Bishop@parliament.govt.nz
Informing others
A second and ongoing important thing you can do is to inform others of these proposals and the threats they pose to waterways and communities. As we noted at the beginning of this letter, these proposals are not widely known.
- Feel free to forward to letter to any one you wish.
- Speak to your organisation and professional networks.
- Encourage others to write to the Minister too as soon as possible.
· Write an opinion piece or letter for a newspaper or industry publication to inform others.
Thank you
Thank you for reading this letter and for the time you take to stand up against the unravelling of environmental law and freshwater protection.
We have made progress in the past and we can again if there is enough strength shown from those outside parliament.
If you have any questions or thoughts, please contact us.
Ngā mihi nui,
Mike Joy and Marnie Prickett
