The Government has announced its framing for the expected replacement of the Resource Management Act (‘phase 3’ of its reform programme).
“It’s good that we now have something to consider. However, it’s extremely ambitious to replace the entire RMA this term,” said EDS CEO Gary Taylor.
“There’s common ground that the RMA is not fit for purpose but reforming it is a big job, especially considering the other changes currently being made to the Act and its secondary instruments.
“The risk is that we will end up with two new Acts that collectively enable harm to our natural world by putting the environment ‘over there’. Development and the environment are not competing interests, and it is important that we integrate development into our environment in a way that is sensitive to its values. Many of our environmental indicators are in a parlous state and affect people’s wellbeing. We need development within clear environmental standards and limits.
“An early test for the Government is whether it will fix the Fast-track Approvals Bill by factoring properly weighted environmental criteria into decision-making. If not, then it portends bad outcomes for phase 3 and will undermine confidence in the process.
“The announced framing for the replacement RMA laws is very complex and in part seems driven by ideological rather than evidence-based analysis. Property rights are important, but they are not the overarching principle on which protection of the natural world should be based.
“On the positive side, including spatial planning as part of the agenda is a good thing, especially considering the size of our infrastructure deficit and the need for longer-term strategic planning. Fewer plans, faster decision-making, fewer consents, more minimum standards, coherent national direction and more robust monitoring and enforcement are all redolent of the repealed Natural and Built Environment Act, so hopefully some content there can be recycled.
“The announcement of an expert advisory group is also a good thing. What’s missing is an ecologist, so the group should look to recruit expert advice where needed to assist its deliberations.
“Other ideas included in the announcement are potentially problematic without further elaboration, such as the suggestions about introducing a tort-based system for disputes and allowing neighbourhoods to vote on the controls that apply to them.
“Much more clarity is needed about the role of bottom lines, and what aspects of the environment they are intended to apply to (eg freshwater, indigenous biodiversity). The idea of a ‘double bottom line’ for environment and essential development sounds like a slippery slope towards trade-offs, in which the natural environment will lose.
“Oblique reference to greater use of economic instruments for freshwater management may have benefits, but it raises big questions about resolution of Māori rights and interests and broader equity issues. And there are to be two separate statutes but only one plan per region, so interface issues will abound.
“EDS is working up a detailed response to the framing announcement and will seek to engage constructively in the work ahead. We’ve got to get this right second time round: we can’t afford to change the system every time the government changes,” said Mr Taylor.