Snapshot on penalties for environmental offending

Snapshot on penalties for environmental offending
Monday 12 December, 2022
Download our guide on penalties for environmental offending here
Accountability and deterrence are two of the key purposes of any sentencing regime and it is no different for environmental offences under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). However, some consider that the current enforcement provisions, and particularly the room they leave for insurance, makes the RMA somewhat toothless, falling short on both these fronts.
While other statutes including the Health & Safety at Work Act 2015 expressly prohibit the use of insurance to pay penalties, the RMA is silent on this issue. Insured offenders are therefore able to have their insurers cover any fine over and above their excess. This neutralises the deterrent value of larger fines. The Court has bemoaned this situation on several occasions.
For example, in Bay of Plenty Regional Council v Whitikau Holdings Ltd the defendant was charged with unlawful disturbance of stream beds and discharge of sediment/forestry debris into habitats for indigenous fish species and the threatened blue duck. The Court described the defendant’s actions as “very reckless, bordering on deliberate” and imposed a substantial fine of $57,500. However, because the defendant had statutory liability insurance, they were likely to only pay a $2,500 excess out of their own pocket. Such a payment would be minimal in comparison to the ‘reckless’ offending. While Judge Harland was clear that such a result did not align with the principles of accountability and deterrence, the lack of guidance in the RMA meant that the Court’s hands were tied.
The Government is now looking to change this, with section 766(1) of the recently released Natural and Built Environments Bill proposing to explicitly prohibit the use of insurance to indemnify a person from their liability to pay a fine, infringement fee or pecuniary penalty.
If this section is part of the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA), it will be the offender, not their insurer, who will feel the sting of penalties imposed for environmental offending. This would improve both the deterrent effect of the enforcement regime and avoid a ‘pay to pollute’ attitude that can come from the current regime’s use of insurance. By ensuring those operating in the environment have ‘skin in the game’, it is hoped that the sentencing principles of accountability and general deterrence will be achieved with respect to environmental offending, which will lead to better outcomes for the environment. The proposed approach also aligns with policy direction which is clear that the costs of environmental offending should be met internally by the offender and not be borne externally.
While there are mixed opinions on the efficacy of the proposed provisions in the Bill, this is one addition that is expected to survive the upcoming select committee process and have a place in the NBA given its existing use in a number of other statutes.
Submissions on the Bill close on 5 February, 2023. We have a team of experts here to help if you would like to prepare and lodge your own submission.
Author
Contributing author
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
