Laura Murphy

Qualifications

LLB (First Class Hons) Victoria University of Wellington 2015
BA Victoria University of Wellington 2015
Admitted to the Bar in New Zealand 2016

Community Activity

Laura is a young professional director of Priority One and a committee member of the Bay of Plenty Resource Management Law Association.
Laura is also a mentor for Project K which is run by the Graham Dingle Charitable Trust.
She has previously volunteered with the Cambodian Charitable Trust and the Child Cancer Foundation.

Contact

DDI: +64 7 927 2236
M: +64 27 391 3161
E: laura.murphy@hobec.co.nz

Laura specialises in all aspects of resource management law, including advising on resource consent processes, planning, designations and enforcement matters across a range of industry sectors and has appeared in the High Court, Environment Court and local authority proceedings.

Laura’s experience includes acting on the following projects:

appeals on the Marlborough Environmental Plan on behalf of Manawa Energy Limited;
applications for Customary Marine Title under the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 on behalf of a number of interested parties;
direct referral application on behalf of Port of Tauranga Limited;
appearing for a submitter in relation to notices of requirement for the North West Transport Project in Auckland.

Laura is a committee member of the New Zealand Law Society’s Environmental Law Committee and the Bay of Plenty Resource Management Law Association, and a member of the Bay of Plenty Agricultural Advisory Group.

Laura grew up in Tauranga and loves practising law here in the Bay. Outside of work she enjoys spending time with her young family and friends, travelling and getting outdoors in our beautiful city.

Laura Murphy's Expertise

Renewable Energy & Climate Change

Local Government

Environment & Planning

Laura Murphy's News & Resources

Fast-track Approvals Bill – Select Committee report back

On Friday 18 October 2024, the Environment Committee reported back on the Fast-track Approvals Bill which was introduced on 7 March 2024. We take a look at what’s changed, what stays the same, and the road ahead. What’s changed? The Environment Committee has recommended the following key changes. The purpose of the Bill has been re-framed as “to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits”. Timeframes are amended slightly to provide the Expert Panel with 10 working days (rather than five) from their appointment to issue an invitation for written comments, and to provide those invited to comment with 20 working days (rather than 10) to provide those comments. Expert Panels no longer include an iwi appointee. However Expert Panels must include at least one member who is suitably qualified in te ao Māori and Māori development. The Expert Panel (not Ministers) will make final decisions on substantive applications. When considering applications, the Expert Panel must give the “greatest weight” to the purpose of the Bill. The Expert Panel may decline an approval if it forms the view that the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have one or more adverse impacts, and those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to outweigh the purpose of the Bill even after any conditions that the panel may set in relation to those impacts are taken into account. The lapse provisions have been amended to allow some discretion. Lapse periods must be at least two years, and if not specified, a default lapse period of five years will apply. What’s stayed the same? The Bill is still an ‘omnibus’ bill which covers a wide range of processes, not just resource consents. A person who has applied for an approval under another Act must withdraw that application before lodging a substantive application that seeks a corresponding approval under the Bill for the same, or substantially the same, activity. The Expert Panel still has a window of 25 working days from the closing date for comments to issue its decision, which is significant given the scale and complexity of many of the projects listed (although suspensions are provided for and there is the ability to extent that timeframe). Appeal rights are available to the High Court on a point of law only. Rights of judicial review are not affected by the Bill. The road ahead The Bill still refers to Schedule 2A and 2B (with provisions for Part A listed projects and Part B listed projects), despite the Minister’s announcement on 6 October 2024 that “Because of the unprecedented level of interest in this process, it became clear that so many projects were suitable for 2A that having a separate list for Schedule 2B became unnecessary, so it will be deleted from the Bill.” Presumably this will be amended as the Bill progresses through Parliament. For listed projects, the immediate issue will be resourcing the processing of those. With 149 projects selected for listing in the Bill, it remains to be seen how many will convert into lodged applications (and how quickly). There is also a mandatory requirement to consult specified persons before lodging the substantive application with the EPA. Once applications are lodged, Experts Panels will need to be formed to process applications. Overall, the fast-track process is likely to be resource intensive for all participants. Seeking referral for fast tracking is still possible (as was the case with the COVID-19 (Fast-track) Consenting Act 2019). However, the question will be the extent to which there is capacity within the system for the processing of referral applications, and referred projects, in light of the volume of listed projects. The Bill is expected to become law before the end of the year. For any questions, please contact one of the below who all have experience with fast-track applications.

Phase three of the Resource Management Reforms

Last week, the Government has announced that two new laws are to be developed to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), with the enjoyment of property rights as their guiding principle. Replacement of the RMA is part of the final phase (phase three) of the Government’s reform of our resource management system. The Government’s intention with a property rights focused system is to allow people to do more on their own property more easily, so long as it does not harm others. Where harm to others results from an activity, the intention is that the new system should step in to protect a property owner’s rights from being compromised by unreasonable activities occurring around them. Cabinet has agreed on ten core design features of the new resource management system. These features are still at a high level and more detail will be required before the effectiveness of these methods can be assessed in achieving the Government’s aspirations. The ten features are as follows: Narrow the scope of the resource management system to focus on managing actual effects on the environment. Establish two acts with clear and distinct purposes – one to manage environmental effects arising from activities and the other to enable urban development and infrastructure. Strengthen and clarify the role of environmental limits and how those are to be developed. Provide for greater use of national standards to reduce the need for resource consents and simplify council plans. Shift the focus away from consenting before activities can get underway, and towards compliance, monitoring and enforcement of activities’ compliance with national standards. Use spatial planning and a simplified design process to lower the cost of infrastructure. Realise efficiencies by requiring one regulation plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils. Provide for a rapid low cost resolution of disputes between neighbours and between property owners and councils, with the potential for a new Planning Tribunal (or equivalent). Uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements and the Crown’s obligations. Provide faster and cheaper processes with less reliance on litigation, contained within shorter and simpler legislation that is more accessible. An expert advisory group has been appointed to assist with the development of the new system, whose expertise includes resource management law, planning and te ao Māori. The Government expects key aspects of the new system to go before Cabinet for agreement before the end of the year with the intention for legislation to be passed before the next election.

Stuck in the Highly Productive Mud

The Environment Court recently released its decision in Blue Grass Limited v Dunedin City Council [2024] NZEnvC 83 which deals with the definition of Highly Productive Land (HPL) in the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The Court has found that it is not open to applicants in consent processes to challenge the Land Use Capability (LUC) of their land as mapped by the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI), even if more detailed site investigations conclude that land is not LUC 1, 2 or 3. Put another way, land zoned rural that the NZLRI has mapped as LUC 1, 2 or 3 is ‘stuck’ as HPL for the time being, until regional councils introduce changes to their regional policy statements. The Environment Court was tasked with answering the question of whether more detailed mapping undertaken by consent applicants since the commencement of the NPS-HPL (17 October 2022) using the LUC classification system could prevail over the identification of land as LUC 1, 2 or 3 as mapped by the NZLRI. This would in turn determine whether land is classified as HPL. The Court’s answer was no. The NPS-HPL provides that regional councils must undertake mapping of HPL within its region and as soon as is practicable (but not later than 3 years from the commencement date of the NPS-HPL) notify a proposed regional policy statement that identifies all HPL by way of maps. Regional councils are still undertaking this mapping and until this is completed cl 3.5(7) of the NPS-HPL sets up the interim definition of HPL as being land which “at the commencement date” of the NPS-HPL is (with some exclusions): (i) zoned general rural or rural production; and (ii) is identified as LUC 1, 2 or 3. Dunedin City Council’s position was that the qualifier of “at the commencement date” in cl 3.5(7) means that the LUC mapping must have been in place at the commencement date. Its submission was that this creates a holding position for protection of HPL until the Otago Regional Council completes its long term mapping and undertakes a change to the RPS as required by clauses 3.4 and 3.5 of the NPS-HPL. That argument was accepted by the Court – the interim definition was intended to create a holding position protecting all land that may be classified as HPL by regional council mapping, until that mapping does occur. Ultimately, what this means is that landowners and consent applicants are unable to undertake their own mapping of specific sites to seek to lessen the LUC of their land and therefore remove it from an HPL classification, in turn easing the consenting pathway. They must instead wait for the relevant regional council to notify a change to its regional policy statement relating to HPL, and then participate in that process if they seek to argue that their land is not HPL. Alternatively, land owners and consent applicants will need to rely solely on the exceptions for use and development of HPL contained in cl 3.6, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10. We expect applicants will seek to test the boundaries of these exceptions in light of this decision. Knowing the LUC classification of rural land as per the NZLRI mapping will have increased importance for purchasers considering potential development opportunities, given the restrictions the NPS-HPL contains and its lack of ‘wiggle room’. If you require any assistance with or wish to discuss this decision or the NPS-HPL generally, please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist environment law and resource management team.

Fast-track Approvals Bill – the third fast-track consenting regime

The fast-track consenting regime proposed by the National/ACT/NZ First coalition government was introduced to Parliament on 7 March 2024. The most awaited aspect of the Fast-track Approvals Bill – the list of projects to be fast-tracked – is blank at this stage. A Fast-track Advisory Group of experts is to be established in the coming weeks to advise Ministers on what projects should be included in the legislation, following which the projects will be inserted into the schedules. The key aspects of the Fast-track Approvals Bill are as follows. Purpose The Bill’s purpose is to provide a fast-track decision-making process that facilitates the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits. The Bill’s purpose has no reference to continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, unlike the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (FTA). Processes covered The Bill covers a much greater range of consents/approvals. In addition to resource consents and notices of requirement for designations under the RMA it includes consents/approvals under the Conservation Act 1987, Wildlife Act 1953, Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983, Reserves Act 1977, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, Crown Minerals Act 1991, and Fisheries Act 1996. The Bill also makes a change to Environment Court processes under the Public Works Act 1981 for projects dealt with under the Bill. The FTA only dealt with resource consents and notices of requirement for designations under the RMA. Treaty of Waitangi The Bill requires persons exercising functions under it to act in accordance with Treaty settlements and recognised customary rights. The Bill does not contain a requirement to act in a manner that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, unlike the FTA. Projects The Bill provides for two types of listed projects, and referred projects. The two types of listed projects will be: Part A – listed projects that can be referred straight to an Expert Panel. Part B – listed projects that may be considered by the joint Ministers for referral to an Expert Panel. The Bill contains criteria for being a referred project including whether the project will have significant regional or national benefits. An example of projects that may qualify include projects that will increase the supply of housing, address housing needs, or contribute to a well-functioning urban environment. Projects are referred to Expert Panels for consideration. Expert Panel The Expert Panel will be set up in a similar way to Expert Consenting Panels under the FTA. However, Expert Panels will only be making recommendations to the ‘joint Ministers’ who will make the decisions. The joint Ministers For the most part, the responsible ‘joint Ministers’ under the Bill are the Ministers for Infrastructure, Regional Development and Transport. This is a move away from the Ministers for the Environment and Conservation under the FTA, although the latter will join the others for Wildlife Act matters. Appeal rights Appeal rights are available to the High Court on a point of law only. Rights of judicial review are not affected by the Bill. Select committee process The Bill has a strong focus on infrastructure and development and will be controversial. It has been referred to the Environment Committee for a select committee process and is open for submissions until 19 April 2024. Please get in touch if you would like to make a submission or discuss things further.

A step forward for climate change – Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited

On 7 February 2024 the Supreme Court released its decision in Smith v Fonterra and unanimously agreed to not strike out Mr Smith’s claims against seven of New Zealand’s largest green house gas (GHG) emitting companies. The threshold to strike out a claim is high and requires that there be no reasonably arguable claim. Like any other plaintiff with a tenable claim, Mr Smith will be entitled to have his case heard. Background The case concerned claims by Mr Smith, an iwi leader and elder of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu and a climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum, against Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings Ltd, NZ Steel Ltd, Z Energy, Channel Infrastructure and BT Mining (Respondents). The claims asserted that the Respondents’ GHG emissions have contributed and will continue to contribute to global warming. This has caused and will cause harm to Mr Smith, his whānau, his descendants and others. Mr Smith’s claim comprised of three causes of action: Public nuisance; Negligence; and A proposed new tort involving a duty to cease contributing to damage to the climate system. The Respondents applied to strike out Mr Smith’s proceeding on the basis that it raises no reasonably arguable cause of action. The High Court struck out Mr Smith’s claims in public nuisance and negligence in 2020, but declined to strike out his claim based on the proposed new tort. The Court of Appeal went further and struck out all three causes of action. The Supreme Court’s decision The Supreme Court found that it was in no position to find that Mr Smith’s causes of action were untenable. It emphasised the high threshold for a strike out application noting that “pre-emptive elimination of proceedings is only appropriate where it can be said that whatever the facts proved, or arguments and policy considerations advanced at trial, a case is bound to fail”. The common law has not previously grappled with a crisis as all-embracing as climate change. However, the Supreme Court stated that this area of common law must develop “in the fertile field of trial, not on the barren rocks of a strike out application”. Can Tikanga inform the formulation of tort claims? Mr Smith claims, in accordance with tikanga, a whakapapa (genealogical) and whanaungatanga (kinship) relationship to the whenua (land), wai (fresh water) and moana (sea) around his land. His claim is that the respondents contributed to climate change effects that caused and will cause ongoing injury to the customary, cultural, historical, spiritual and nutritional values associated with these places. His tikanga based connection with these places provides the foundation for the claim that an injury to place is also an injury to himself, his whānau and descendants. The Supreme Court stated that whatever the cause of action, the trial court will need to grapple with the fact that Mr Smith purports to bring proceedings not merely as an alleged proprietor who has suffered loss, but also as a kaitiaki acting on behalf of the whenua, wai and moana. It must consider some tikanga concepts of loss that are neither physical nor economic. Addressing and assessing matters of tikanga simply cannot be avoided. Mr Smith’s case can now proceed to a full trial in the High Court.

New government and a new round of RMA reforms to go with it

The new government’s coalition agreements gives a clear indication of its plans in relation to its resource management legislative reform for the next three years. With Labour’s legislation to be scrapped in favour of a return to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) (with some amendments), and further significant reform on the horizon, it is going to continue to be an interesting and transitional time in the RMA space. The coalition agreements are clear, as National was prior to the election, that the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA) and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 will be repealed by Christmas, and the RMA will be reinstated, with amendments. These amendments are intended to ensure that it is easier to consent new infrastructure (including renewable energy projects), streamline the plan preparation process, and importantly establish a ‘fast track, one stop shop’ for consents and permitting processes for regional and national projects of significance (the process will involve a referral by Ministers for suitable projects). This fast track process is intended to be introduced for first reading in the first 100 days of the Government, no doubt to replace the fast track process currently contained in the NBEA. In the longer term, the intention is for the RMA to be replaced with new resource management laws that are based on enjoyment of property rights as their guiding principle. What this will look like remains unclear, but is likely to mean less regulation and control on what can be done as of right. Also under review will be the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, with a particular focus on reconsidering the mapping of significant natural areas that is required by the current policy statement. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and the National Environmental Standards on Freshwater Management will be replaced, to “better reflects the interests of all water users”, putting the focus squarely on use rather than preserving and restoring where degraded the state of water bodies, as is the current priority. There is a strong focus on infrastructure, with a National Infrastructure Agency to be established to coordinate government funding, connect investors with New Zealand and improve funding, procurement and delivery to prioritise projects of regional and national significance. All work on Three Waters will stop immediately, with assets to be returned to council ownership. A review of all legislation that refers to the ‘principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ will also be conducted, with all such references to be either repealed or replaced with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty. Interestingly, the Minister for the Environment is now a Minister outside of Cabinet – Penny Simmonds, with Act’s Andrew Hoggard, the Associate Minister, also outside of Cabinet. The more powerful Ministerial positions who will deliver RMA reform look to be Chris Bishop who will take the new Ministerial position of Minister Responsible for RMA Reform as well as Minister of Housing and Minister for Infrastructure, and will be supported by Act’s Simon Court who will also be a Minister Responsible for RMA Reform. Shane Jones will be Minister for Resources (a new position).

One step closer to RMA reform

The Environment Select Committee has returned its recommendations in relation to the Natural and Built Environments Bill (NBB) and the Spatial Planning Bill (SPB), the two pieces of legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Bills). The Environment Select Committee has made a number of changes to the Bills, some more controversial than others, and many which tidy up aspects of the proposed legislation. One of the most significant is a change to the purpose of the Bills, which is now solely focused on upholding te Oranga o te Taiao. Previously the Bills contained dual purposes. This change represents a lessening of focus on use of the environment, in favour of environmental protection, and in all likelihood will increase challenges for developers and other users of resources. Welcome news for those resource users will be the Committee’s recommendation to introduce an objective to the NBB which emphasises the focus of the legislation on upfront planning through plan making processes, to reduce reliance on consenting. The Committee has also recommended amendments to the outcomes of the NBB, and included provisions which address the management of conflicts between outcomes. An example of this would be a development proposal that meets the outcome of ensuring infrastructure is provided in a timely and ongoing matter, but may have effects on indigenous biodiversity, meaning it could be in conflict with the outcome requiring protection of indigenous biodiversity. The conflict provisions state that not all outcomes need to be achieved in all places and at all times, and that achieving outcome compatibility should be favoured over achieving one outcome over another. Whether these provisions assist in practice to resolve conflicting interests when it comes to managing our resources is yet to be seen. Many called through the submissions process for the continued use of certain RMA terminology that has been the subject of significant litigation and is now well understood. Unfortunately, that call has not been answered in relation to the effects management hierarchy provisions in the NBB, which now require residual effects that are “more than trivial” (terminology not used in the RMA) to be offset and compensated for in the context of significant biodiversity areas, and specified cultural heritage areas. In terms of the SPB, the Committee has not recommended any major changes other than the change to its purpose which has been discussed above. Interestingly, the Committee has recommended the removal of the prohibition on considering impacts on scenic views (from private properties) from the SPB, therefore allowing consideration of impacts on scenic views from private properties as part of preparation of regional spatial strategies, but the prohibition has remained in the NBB meaning it won’t be a consideration in regional NBE plans or consenting processes. The process to enacting the Bills is likely to move quite quickly from here, without further public consultation and with limited further amendments. The second reading is occurring this week, followed by a Committee of the Whole House before a final reading prior to royal assent. The future of the Bills is unclear if there is a change in government later this year, with both National and Act refusing to the support the Bills, taking the position that they are worse than the current system in place under the RMA.