Parties Differ Greatly on RMA
Rarely is a kind word spoken about the Resource Management Act (RMA), New Zealand’s major piece of environmental legislation.
Since the RMA came into force in 1991, it has regularly been in the firing line, with critics calling it unduly complex, and saying it delegates too much work to local authorities. Unreasonable delays, high compliance costs, and abuse of the consultation process are all common complaints.
It’s fair to say some concerns appear to be over-hyped, while others have a more legitimate basis.
While most resource consents are granted at local council level on a non-notified basis within 20 working days, the “failure” of major projects such as the Auckland V8 Super car street race and Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua has heightened criticism that the RMA unduly impedes tourism and investment in infrastructure in New Zealand.
Big business has been vocal in its opposition to the RMA, adamant that the legislation fails to provide adequately for the national interest and economic development. They say it places the environment on too high a pedestal. Rightly or wrongly, business also believes the Act provides too much opportunity for the public to be involved in the submission process, often resulting in “mischievous” submitters deliberately delaying the progress of development projects.
The failure of Project Aqua, in particular, was a push behind the Government’s review of the RMA, which resulted in the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 — the last bill to be passed through Parliament before entering recess for the election campaign. Government says the amendment will reduce delays and uncertainty about costs, and improve the quality of processes and decision- making under the Act.
While the Labour party has not released any specific policy on the RMA for its 2005 campaign, the amendments to the Act effectively represent current policy. Key points include:
* Recognition of existing investment as a factor in deciding applications for replacement of existing consents.
* More streamlined ways of dealing with major projects of national importance.
* An increased leadership role for central government through national policy statements and national environmental standards dealing with issues such as contaminated land, human drinking water, telecommunications, biosolids, land transport noise, biodiversity, electricity transmission and generation.
Labour also cites its increase in funding for the Environment Court and Environment Court judges as one of its major achievements, and sees this as being a major factor in reducing the backlog of cases that were waiting to be heard before the Environment Court.
Some of the other political parties have responded to the 2005 amendment changes by saying they have not gone far enough to address the problems that exist in the resource management area, while others see the amendments as unnecessary.
National’s platform is that it will substantially reform the RMA. It supports the RMA’s commitment to sustainability, its integrated approach to environmental management, and the focus on environmental effects. But a major concern is that the Act has become too complex and cumbersome. National believes the Act is too idealistic about public consultation, and insufficient weighting is given to the rights of property owners about how their land is used. National also sees the RMA as delegating too much responsibility to local councils throughout the country, which consequently end up re- inventing the wheel.
Some of the specific reforms to the RMA that National would make include:
* Rewriting the principles of the Act to provide for sustainable development (in place of the current sustainable management) and a greater recognition of property rights.
* Reduction in delays by requiring: all councils to have operative plans within 12 months of the reform bill being passed; a council not to charge for processing a consent if it is late in doing so; the Environment Court to issue decisions within 20 days of a hearing concluding; and by disbanding the RMA environmental legal aid objection fund.
* Seeking to limit “vexatious and frivolous objections” by re- introducing the requirement for a submitter to have standing; repealing all references to Maori cultural and spiritual values; and strengthening the powers of the Environment Court to award costs and require security for costs.
ACT sees the RMA as requiring a “gutting” and not just tinkering. ACT has identified the RMA’s failure to recognise private property rights as a problem and sees a much greater role for common law actions and remedies in the resource management area. ACT would replace the RMA with basic common law disciplines, and supplement these with case-by- case regulations where necessary. ACT would provide for compensation for the removal of property rights and believes costs should be awarded against individuals who make spurious objections.
New Zealand First’s specific plans for the RMA include enhancing the pre-hearing phase by giving councils the power to require attendance of all parties at pre- hearings to enable timeframes for hearing matters to be set and agreement between parties to be reached about the matters at issue.
The Green Party sees the RMA as an effective environmental planning tool with many good intentions. They see the latest amendment as a further weakening of the Act. The Greens believe the way that the RMA has been implemented has led to controversy about its effectiveness.
The Greens are opposed to introducing a national interest clause to the RMA because that would be at odds with the intention of the Act.
.
Erin Woolley is a solicitor specialising in resource management with national and trans- Tasman lawyers Duncan Cotterill. Duncan Cotterill has a dedicated resource management team.