Laura Bielby

A preference for enforcement orders?

Across Aotearoa New Zealand, councils are increasingly re-examining how they use the enforcement tools available under the RMA, prompted in part by a clear judicial signal: prosecuƟon should not necessarily be the default pathway when other mechanisms may achieve beƩer or faster environmental outcomes.

This session explores the emerging shiŌtoward greater reliance on enforcement orders and related non-prosecutorial tools, drawing on recent case studies from councils around the country.

The session will highlight several instances where enforcement orders have delivered the bestenvironmental outcomes, and cost-effecƟve outcomes, as well as case studies revealing the pracƟcal challenges councils face when adopƟng these tools.

UlƟmately, the session aims to equip those working in the RMA compliance and enforcement space with a deeper understanding of both the opportuniƟes and challenges of enforcement orders, offering recent case insights that will help with making more strategic, outcome-focused decisions.

Compliance in Severe Weather

Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe across New Zealand, placing unprecedented pressure on environmental compliance systems. Cyclones, flooding, and slippage are increasingly triggering environmental incidents that challenge traditional regulatory approaches and expose gaps in preparedness, resilience, and enforcement capability.

This presentation examines how councils and our communities are navigating compliance obligations in a climate where extreme weather is no longer exceptional but expected.

Drawing on recent case studies, the session explores the types of non-compliance most commonly associated with severe weather events, including unplanned discharges, sediment loss, wastewater overflows, and damage to consented structures. It considers the complex question of culpability when incidents arise from a combination of natural forces, ageing infrastructure, and human decision-making.

The discussion also assesses how existing tools under the RMA can be applied in these contexts, and where they may fall short.

Who Pays for Enforcement?

Councils are expected to take prompt and effective enforcement action, but the costs of doing so are often borne by ratepayers.

In environmental compliance matters, this can create an unfair outcome: the public pays for the enforcement response, while the person responsible for the non-compliance avoids the financial consequences of the proceeding.

This session will explore costs recovery as an important part of an effective enforcement strategy. Drawing on recent Environment Court decisions, including a very recent Auckland Council decision, where the Council obtained a higher-than-standard costs award. The presentation will examine when councils should seek costs, what factors support a higher award, and how enforcement teams can improve their prospects of recovery.

The session will focus on practical lessons for councils, including the importance of documenting why enforcement action was reasonable, identifying aggravating factors such as repeated non-compliance or delay, and ensuring costs are properly recorded and linked to the proceeding.

It will encourage councils to treat costs recovery not as punitive, but as a legitimate way to ensure that ratepayers are not left carrying the burden of avoidable non-compliance.