Increasingly extreme weather<\/a> is exposing the consequences of how we manage our land. Flooding and landslides have devastated communities, while damage caused by forestry slash<\/a> during storms have brought heavy costs<\/a> for people and property.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, New Zealand faces ever-growing demands<\/a> for housing, infrastructure and economic development. Yet the regulatory system meant to manage it remains unsettled.<\/p>\n The previous Labour government passed legislation to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA), only for the National-led coalition to repeal it and introduce its own Planning Act<\/a> and Natural Environment Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n The new system promises<\/a> to make development easier, reduce costs and delays, and improve environmental management. But environment groups warn<\/a> it could weaken protections for nature and leave communities facing even greater risks.<\/p>\n Although the new legislation has passed, most of the changes will come into effect over the next four years. The outcome of this election, of course, may see the rulebook rewritten yet again.<\/p>\n A transformed policy landscape<\/p>\n Few areas of New Zealand\u2019s environmental policy landscape have been untouched by the past three years of reform. But we point to key changes that have prioritised development over addressing issues outlined in successive environmental reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n Consider safeguards for our degraded freshwater ecosystems<\/a>. Following earlier court decisions<\/a> requiring tighter controls on diffuse pollution from farms, the government amended the RMA to allow activities with significant adverse effects on water quality to continue, provided gradual improvements are made<\/a>.<\/p>\n Rather than impose immediate changes that could prove costly or difficult to implement, this change aimed to give farmers and councils more time to tackle pollution. Still, it hinges on voluntary action and accurate nutrient modelling that has its own significant limitations<\/a>.<\/p>\n In introducing its Fast-track Approvals Act<\/a> to speed up consenting, the government talked of ending \u201ca culture of no<\/a>\u201d. But while there\u2019d been criticisms over unnecessary delays and costs for large projects, between 92% and 96% of resource consents<\/a> had been granted annually over the preceding decade. <\/p>\n The scheme has also proved controversial for its inclusion of subdivisions and earlier declined \u201czombie projects<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Environmental decision-making has become more centralised in other important areas.<\/p>\n The new resource management laws give ministers greater powers to override environmental limits<\/a> when setting national direction<\/a>. While this might help provide more consistent rules across the country, limits can change with successive governments, creating uncertainty for businesses and communities, and increasing risks to the environment.<\/p>\n The government has also removed some regulatory powers<\/a> from regional councils to protect marine biodiversity and concentrated responsibility within the Ministry for Primary Industries, despite concerns over a long-time failure<\/a> to prevent damage to ocean habitats<\/a>. This could well become a focal point for post-election coalition negotiations<\/a>.<\/p>\n Other reforms affect how costs of improving the environment are shared between landowners, councils and communities.<\/p>\n In Tair\u0101whiti, for example, highly erodible land and plantation forestry have contributed to serious damage during storms. The government has declined to fund<\/a> proposed changes to land use aimed at reducing future landslides, while ministers have urged councils<\/a> to consider the costs of enforcing environmental rules on forestry companies and their directors.<\/p>\n Read more: Election Policy Tracker: your guide to what the parties are promising during the 2026 election campaign<\/a><\/p>\n The damage caused by forestry and erosion in Tair\u0101whiti reflects land-use decisions made by successive governments. But without significant investment in changing how vulnerable land is used, communities may continue to bear the costs through flooding, landslides and environmental damage<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Planning Act also expands provisions for regulatory relief<\/a>, which could require councils to compensate landowners when planning restrictions significantly affect \u201creasonable land use\u201d.<\/p>\n Contrary to the RMA\u2019s \u201cpolluter pays<\/a>\u201d model, its principle is that individual landowners should not necessarily bear the full cost of restrictions introduced to restore our waterways for example. Such compensation requirements could also make environmental protection more expensive for councils.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s proposed cap<\/a> on council rate increases would place further limits on how councils could fund these costs, while the prospect of council amalgamations<\/a> adds more uncertainty.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the new Natural Environment Act favours voluntary action plans in some circumstances where environmental limits are breached or need to be restored. Some primary sector groups have welcomed<\/a> the new framework, arguing it will cut unnecessary regulation and consenting costs. <\/p>\n While government analysis<\/a> also suggests there will be less need for resource consents, we question whether environmental management will necessarily become simpler for landowners. National forestry regulations<\/a>, for instance, require extensive documentation to justify why resource consent is not needed.<\/p>\n It\u2019s notable to us that even the legal definition of the natural environment has changed. The RMA recognised the relationship between people and the natural world, including responsibilities to future generations. The Natural Environment Act, by contrast, explicitly excludes \u201chumans\u201d from its definition of ecosystems.<\/p>\n The new law still includes biodiversity protection among its objectives. Whether it delivers that protection will depend on the environmental limits set by ministers, how they are enforced and the resources councils have to carry out their responsibilities.<\/p>\n What parties are pitching<\/p>\n Perhaps the most significant change concerns the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi <\/a>in environmental management. The coalition has sought to reduce its role in government decision-making, including in the management of natural resources.<\/p>\n Yet our experience as researchers working on coastal areas, native and plantation forests, and rural and urban environments shows the value of relational te ao M\u0101ori approaches<\/a> that recognise the relationships between people, land and water. We see these as essential to restoring damaged environments and helping communities withstand the effects of climate change.<\/p>\n So, what are parties bringing to the table in the environment space this election?<\/p>\n National has promised loans<\/a> of up to $300 million to help farmers store water and would ban<\/a> ring-net fishing in high-protection areas of the Hauraki Gulf. ACT wants to remove Te Mana o te Wai <\/a>from resource consenting, reducing the priority given to freshwater health in those decisions.<\/p>\n The Greens, meanwhile, are proposing tighter environmental limits<\/a>, stronger protection for the Hauraki Gulf<\/a> and a phase-out of bottom trawling. Opportunity also wants to phase out bottom trawling<\/a>, expand marine protected areas and move towards fisheries management based on the health of whole ecosystems.<\/p>\n Labour, meanwhile, has said<\/a> it would amend rather than repeal the coalition\u2019s new resource management laws, including restoring agreements that provide for iwi participation in environmental decision-making.<\/p>\n As New Zealanders weigh these competing approaches, there\u2019s value in considering the M\u0101ori kaupapa<\/a> of t\u016bpuna pono<\/a> \u2013 or being \u201cgood ancestors\u201d to future generations. A healthy relationship with the natural world remains at the core of this.<\/p>\n From the cost of living to how best to tackle climate change, the coming election involves some big choices.<\/p>\n![\"Promo](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/file-20260928-50-1ujkwl.png\")
<\/p>\n