The Environment Select Committee's report on the Planning and Natural Environment Bills is here. Like the Bills themselves and the Government's reform agenda – the report is lengthy, reflecting the many submissions received and the importance of the new legislative framework.
Here's our take on the key things you need to know about the Committee's report.
1. No consensus in Select Committee
After receiving over three thousand submissions (most in opposition), the majority of the Select Committee recommended significant changes. However, the amendments do not change the policy thrust of the Bills and instead seek to improve clarity and workability. The reports include Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori's minority views which are, as expected, highly critical of the Bills. While Labour does not intend to repeal and replace the Bills in their entirety, it has signalled it would consider targeted amendments if elected. There remains a real risk that a change of Government could lead to further legislative adjustments, some potentially significant.
2. An expanded pathway for breaching environmental limits
As originally introduced, national standards would create a narrow pathway for "significant infrastructure" to breach environmental limits. Environmental limits under the Natural Environment Bill will define the acceptable level of protection for human or ecosystem health. Human health limits would be set by the Minister in national standards, while ecosystem health limits would be set by regional councils in natural environment plans.
The Committee recommended expanding this pathway, allowing the Minister to authorise activities to breach human health or ecosystem health limits. Importantly, the amended Bills include "guardrails" as to when the exemption pathway may be used by the Minister which include an assessment of whether the "public benefits" of the activities outweigh potential harm that the environmental limits were intended to protect, and likely opportunity costs of non-compliance. The Bill's "goals" have also been amended to remove references to development occurring “within environmental limits”, watering down the original emphasis placed on environmental bottom lines.
3. Regulatory relief regime retained despite widespread opposition
The Planning Bill introduced a new and controversial regulatory relief regime for landowners whose reasonable use of land is significantly impacted by specified rules relating to heritage, sites of significance to Māori, landscapes, natural character areas, significant natural areas, and indigenous biodiversity.
A ministry-commissioned report estimated potential costs of regulatory relief of between $7 million and $1.99 billion nationwide. Despite nearly all submitters opposing the regime, the Committee majority has retained it with minor amendments. Minority parties say the regime will disincentivise environmental protections and could result in biodiversity loss.
4. Definitely no hierarchy between "Goals"
Given the centrality of the Goals (which provide more information about the purpose of the new Bills) to the new framework, a large number of submissions commented on them. While the Committee has refined the drafting of several of the Goals following submitter concerns the wording created an inherent hierarchy, it has not made fundamental changes.
In our view, the amendments to the Planning Bill Goals are helpful and the amended drafting is more directive – requiring land to be available to "create abundant development opportunities" rather than just to "meet current and expected demand" and that the system should "enable" rather than "plan and provide for" infrastructure.
5. Amendments affecting “infrastructure”
The Committee majority recommended a significantly broader definition of “infrastructure”. The definition focuses on the services and public good outcomes that infrastructure provides, including physical structures that perform a public function or support the functioning of the economy, communities, health and safety, or environmental protection.
The Committee has also not included language in the Goals “to protect” infrastructure as sought by some submitters. This creates a risk that the Goals provide direction for future infrastructure but do not similarly protect existing infrastructure, including from reverse sensitivity effects. The Committee considered whether reverse sensitivity should be expressly addressed in the Planning Bill but concluded the existing provisions requiring planning committees and territorial authorities to recognise and provide for the protection of infrastructure from incompatible activities were sufficient.
6. (Almost) no grounds to reject private plan change requests
The grounds for rejecting a private plan change request for processing (ie preventing them being considered on their merits) have been significantly reduced from what is in the RMA and the Bills as introduced – the Committee recommended that the only ground on which a council can reject a private plan change request is if the request has been considered within the last 12 months. This will remove some of the politics out of the early phases of private plan changes leaving development proposals to be assessed on their merits.
Changes recommended by the Committee to the RMA mean during the transition period private plan changes will not be able to be notified from 1 January 2028 until the new system comes online by Order in Council (unless the local authority obtains a Ministerial exemption from the prohibition). As a result, there will be a closing window following the Bills being enacted for proponents of private plan changes.
7. Transition will be longer
The Committee found submitter concerns about the tight timeframes for developing the first national instruments and plans compelling. As a result the Committee recommended extending most timeframes for producing key documents including national policy and new regional plans by at least 9 months. This means the transition to the new system is likely to run to late 2029 if the Bills pass in mid-2026.
Even with these extensions, the timeframes are ambitious given the scale of change – particularly for the simultaneous development of national policy direction, national standards, and regional spatial plans. A new contingency mechanism has been recommended by the Committee so national transition can proceed even if one region or district has not completed its plans on time, preventing localised delays from holding up the whole system.
The Committee also made changes to the parts of the new regime that will have effect during the transition period. This includes the removal of effects on landscape from matters that a consent authority must disregard under section 104 of the RMA and as such the RMA status quo will continue for landscape effects until the new system is switched on.
8. New wildlife approvals framework
The Committee recommends transferring decision-making for wildlife approvals from DOC to permitting authorities (regional councils). This reflects the approach taken in the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and follows recent criticism of DOC’s Wildlife Act approval processes as slow and disconnected from RMA consenting.
While wildlife approvals would be issued alongside natural resource permits by permitting authorities, DOC would retain an advisory role and must be consulted on regulations. Labour has criticised the change, arguing that DOC should remain the decision-maker with councils required to consult DOC on applications.
9. No market-based allocation or comparative permitting regimes
Following concerns that market-based and comparative-assessment allocation mechanisms would be unfair and could prejudice unresolved Māori freshwater rights, the Committee recommended deleting clauses enabling market-mechanism and comparative-assessment allocation methods. This means that water and other natural resource permits will continue to be allocated on a “first in, first served” basis through the existing application process, rather than through market mechanisms such as auctions or trading systems. The removal also means councils will not be able to conduct comparative assessments between competing applications for limited resources.
While this addresses the equity concerns raised, it leaves the challenge of efficient natural resource allocation unresolved and clearly in the too hard basket.
10. Increase in stakeholder involvement in national instruments and plans
The Committee has not recommended any material change to the new national instruments. Rather, the Committee focused on resolving conflicts, with national policy direction now required to more clearly state how the Goals are to be achieved and balanced. The Committee also recommended the Minister be allowed to seek comment from "any group or sector that the Minister considers appropriate" prior to notification of a draft instrument.
The provisions relating to the preparation of regional spatial plans are also proposed to be amended to require local authorities to consult with a range of interested parties before the draft regional spatial plan is notified for submissions. This includes infrastructure providers, water organisations, development and sector groups, and representatives of the wider community.
These are welcome changes to provide greater opportunity for interested parties to provide input into the development of these critical documents which will shape the day-to-day operation of the new system.
Next Steps
The Bills now proceed to their second reading, with the intent they will be passed by Parliament before the election (noting the House rises on 1 October). We expect there will be further refinement through Amendment Papers as the Bills progress through their remaining stages, and in an election year, we will be hearing a great deal from the various parties on why – and why not – this reform should occur.
If you would like to discuss the Bills in more detail, or explore how the proposed changes may affect you, please do not hesitate to get in touch with one of our experts.