The Minister responsible for RMA Reform shied from giving guarantees about protecting the Waitākere Ranges under new planning and development laws when questioned in Parliament yesterday.
The PM was no more committed to protecting World Heritage sites. To the contrary, he declared he was gung-ho about mining – and he wasn’t too fussed about where miners should dig.
His Government’s position was spelled out in responses to two separate sets of questions.
Chris Bishop was asked what assurances he could give to the people of Tāmaki Makaurau that his RMA reforms would not impact the protection of the Waitākere Ranges.
His reply was expressed in the language of a legislator who wants the public to sift through his words to work out what he said.
He noted that special legislation applies to the ranges, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.
This requires Auckland Council to give effect to its purpose and objectives when making plans under the Resource Management Act that affect the area and to have particular regard to that purpose and objectives when making resource consent decisions in the area.
The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, which will replace the RMA, are currently before the Environment Committee for consideration. When those bills were introduced, it was acknowledged that not all consequential amendments to other Acts were included, and the committee – as Bishop understands it – has been made aware of that fact.
To maintain the intent of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act under the new planning system, consequential amendments will be needed, and the Environment Committee will be considering that as part of its scrutiny of the bills.
Let’s wait and see seems to be te answer to Kaipara’s question.
Let’s dig further.
Oriini Kaipara: How can the Minister justify advancing planning legislation that effectively overrides the protections of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and what specific safeguards, if any, will remain to prevent irreversible environmental degradation in the Waitākere Ranges?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I suggest the member, at the end of the night, goes back and reads the Hansard, because if she was listening, she would find out that that’s not what I’m doing.
Oriini Kaipara: What weight has the Minister given to the strong opposition from local communities and mana whenua who are concerned that his RMA reform will undermine the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and why are these concerns not currently reflected in the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Again, I gave a pretty comprehensive answer to the primary question, which was that there are a range of consequential amendments required—there’s around 100. It’s not just about the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, it’s about 100 other pieces of legislation that require consequential amendments, which the select committee will be considering. In relation to the first part of the question, my understanding is that there has been a range of submissions in that regard to the Environment Committee. The bill is in the hands of the committee.
ACT leader David Seymour helped to buttress the Government’s inclination to put development before environmental protection.
Hon David Seymour: Is there any chance that these changes might allow families with a horse paddock in Henderson, where they’ve been trying to build homes for decades, to actually provide those homes that would do a lot more for mana whenua and many others complaining than any of the carping we’ve heard in this question so far?
Bishop replied that he has received a number of emails around the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act seeking that it be entrenched in law.
I’ve also had emails from people who actually live there who wish to do simple things with their property, like subdivide to put another house on, who find themselves unable to do that. What’s important is that the select committee—as I’ve said three times now—work its way through that, consider the consequential amendments made, and I look forward to the report back to the House.
Kaipara asked if Bishop would accept responsibility for any irreversible damage to the Waitākere Ranges, should the protections be weakened.
Bishop made no promises on that score.
He was keen, however, to take the brownie points for whatever goodies flow from economic development facilitated by the RMA reforms.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the Government’s planning reforms work as intended, I will take responsibility for the abundant development opportunities that will land in this country. I will take responsibility for the renewable energy that will be far easier to build—the windfarms that don’t take six years to build. I will take responsibility for infrastructure projects not tied up in endless red tape to build transmission and roads and rail projects. I will take responsibility for the prosperity that we have been denied as a country because of the straightjacket of the RMA.
The Government’s support of mining in World Heritage Sites was more enthusiastically acknowledged by Prime Minister Chris Luxon.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the definition of a UNESCO World Heritage Site that “World Heritage Sites are places recognised as having ‘outstanding universal value’. They are … deemed significant for their historical, artistic, or scientific importance.”; if so, why is it appropriate to mine in these places?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: How does he justify granting a prospecting permit in one of only three of New Zealand’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are very interested in developing more mining in this country because we need critical minerals to make the clean, green transition. That’s what we’ve got in this country. We’re going to continue to explore them and develop all our natural resources.
Davidson was required to reword her next question
Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he think New Zealanders are OK with his Government trading off a place with outstanding universal value for short-term, private profits?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I know New Zealanders are not OK about is not having high-paying jobs in regional New Zealand and actually banning oil and gas and mining projects that ends up having Kiwis leave New Zealand to go to Australia to access those jobs in those sectors. We are going to make this country wealthier and more prosperous for everybody, and that means using our resources.
Davidson recalled the commitment of John Key’s National-led Coalition Governments a decade or so ago that there would be no mining in World Heritage areas “like the spectacular Te Wāhipounamu”.
Luxon seems disinclined to stick to that commitment.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we will find the balance, but we are prioritising economic growth in this country. We are going to get things done, we’re going to get this economy moving, and we’re going to offer high-paying jobs to people in regional New Zealand. That’s a good thing.
Hon Marama Davidson: If he accepts that mining is appropriate in a globally recognised World Heritage area, is there any piece of supposedly protected land in Aotearoa that is not open to mining?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Just remember, 30 percent of this country is in the Department of Conservation estate. We have very important national parks of very high environmental quality, and we’ll continue to protect those, obviously.
PoO consulted Co-Pilot for a steer on the protection of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in New Zealand.
As a signatory to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, New Zealand has agreed to:
Chris Bishop was asked what assurances he could give to the people of Tāmaki Makaurau that his RMA reforms would not impact the protection of the Waitākere Ranges.
His reply was expressed in the language of a legislator who wants the public to sift through his words to work out what he said.
He noted that special legislation applies to the ranges, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.
This requires Auckland Council to give effect to its purpose and objectives when making plans under the Resource Management Act that affect the area and to have particular regard to that purpose and objectives when making resource consent decisions in the area.
The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, which will replace the RMA, are currently before the Environment Committee for consideration. When those bills were introduced, it was acknowledged that not all consequential amendments to other Acts were included, and the committee – as Bishop understands it – has been made aware of that fact.
To maintain the intent of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act under the new planning system, consequential amendments will be needed, and the Environment Committee will be considering that as part of its scrutiny of the bills.
Let’s wait and see seems to be te answer to Kaipara’s question.
Let’s dig further.
Oriini Kaipara: How can the Minister justify advancing planning legislation that effectively overrides the protections of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and what specific safeguards, if any, will remain to prevent irreversible environmental degradation in the Waitākere Ranges?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I suggest the member, at the end of the night, goes back and reads the Hansard, because if she was listening, she would find out that that’s not what I’m doing.
Oriini Kaipara: What weight has the Minister given to the strong opposition from local communities and mana whenua who are concerned that his RMA reform will undermine the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and why are these concerns not currently reflected in the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Again, I gave a pretty comprehensive answer to the primary question, which was that there are a range of consequential amendments required—there’s around 100. It’s not just about the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, it’s about 100 other pieces of legislation that require consequential amendments, which the select committee will be considering. In relation to the first part of the question, my understanding is that there has been a range of submissions in that regard to the Environment Committee. The bill is in the hands of the committee.
ACT leader David Seymour helped to buttress the Government’s inclination to put development before environmental protection.
Hon David Seymour: Is there any chance that these changes might allow families with a horse paddock in Henderson, where they’ve been trying to build homes for decades, to actually provide those homes that would do a lot more for mana whenua and many others complaining than any of the carping we’ve heard in this question so far?
Bishop replied that he has received a number of emails around the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act seeking that it be entrenched in law.
I’ve also had emails from people who actually live there who wish to do simple things with their property, like subdivide to put another house on, who find themselves unable to do that. What’s important is that the select committee—as I’ve said three times now—work its way through that, consider the consequential amendments made, and I look forward to the report back to the House.
Kaipara asked if Bishop would accept responsibility for any irreversible damage to the Waitākere Ranges, should the protections be weakened.
Bishop made no promises on that score.
He was keen, however, to take the brownie points for whatever goodies flow from economic development facilitated by the RMA reforms.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the Government’s planning reforms work as intended, I will take responsibility for the abundant development opportunities that will land in this country. I will take responsibility for the renewable energy that will be far easier to build—the windfarms that don’t take six years to build. I will take responsibility for infrastructure projects not tied up in endless red tape to build transmission and roads and rail projects. I will take responsibility for the prosperity that we have been denied as a country because of the straightjacket of the RMA.
The Government’s support of mining in World Heritage Sites was more enthusiastically acknowledged by Prime Minister Chris Luxon.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the definition of a UNESCO World Heritage Site that “World Heritage Sites are places recognised as having ‘outstanding universal value’. They are … deemed significant for their historical, artistic, or scientific importance.”; if so, why is it appropriate to mine in these places?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: How does he justify granting a prospecting permit in one of only three of New Zealand’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are very interested in developing more mining in this country because we need critical minerals to make the clean, green transition. That’s what we’ve got in this country. We’re going to continue to explore them and develop all our natural resources.
Davidson was required to reword her next question
Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he think New Zealanders are OK with his Government trading off a place with outstanding universal value for short-term, private profits?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I know New Zealanders are not OK about is not having high-paying jobs in regional New Zealand and actually banning oil and gas and mining projects that ends up having Kiwis leave New Zealand to go to Australia to access those jobs in those sectors. We are going to make this country wealthier and more prosperous for everybody, and that means using our resources.
Davidson recalled the commitment of John Key’s National-led Coalition Governments a decade or so ago that there would be no mining in World Heritage areas “like the spectacular Te Wāhipounamu”.
Luxon seems disinclined to stick to that commitment.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we will find the balance, but we are prioritising economic growth in this country. We are going to get things done, we’re going to get this economy moving, and we’re going to offer high-paying jobs to people in regional New Zealand. That’s a good thing.
Hon Marama Davidson: If he accepts that mining is appropriate in a globally recognised World Heritage area, is there any piece of supposedly protected land in Aotearoa that is not open to mining?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Just remember, 30 percent of this country is in the Department of Conservation estate. We have very important national parks of very high environmental quality, and we’ll continue to protect those, obviously.
PoO consulted Co-Pilot for a steer on the protection of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in New Zealand.
As a signatory to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, New Zealand has agreed to:
- Identify and protect sites of “outstanding universal value”
- Maintain their integrity and authenticity
- Regularly report on their condition to UNESCO
Protection is mainly enforced through New Zealand’s legal system, especially:
- Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
- National Parks Act 1980
- Conservation Act 1987
Most of Te Wāhipounamu sits within national parks like Fiordland, Aoraki/Mount Cook, Westland Tai Poutini, and Mount Aspiring. These are protected under the National Parks Act 1980, which requires land to be preserved “as far as possible in its natural state.”
The Crown Minerals Act 1991 explicitly prohibits mining in national parks and certain high-value conservation areas (known as Schedule 4 land). Most of Te Wāhipounamu falls into this category.
The Co-Pilot responses recalled that the government led by John Key proposed reviewing parts of “Schedule 4” land under the Crown Minerals Act in 2010.
The idea was to remove some areas from Schedule 4 protection, allow mineral exploration and possible mining,
The proposal triggered one of the largest environmental protests in New Zealand in decades:
- Over 40,000 people marched in cities like Auckland
- More than 37,000 public submissions were made—most opposing mining
- Environmental groups, tourism operators, and iwi strongly objected
And this is an election year…
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.