Bold RMA changes look good unless there's devil in the detail

The government has presented a bold package of wide-ranging reforms in this first phase of its total reform package. While some of my favoured reforms are not included I can always hope they will be included in stage two.

Some praise or criticism will have to withheld until we see the actual Bill as tabled in the house.

Many have been concerned that these reforms would focus on making processing quicker and more effective for large infrastructure projects only. The Overview suggests this is definitely not the case, and provided Councils and their advisors take the intentions of these reforms to heart, everyone should benefit from these proposals.

For me, a litmus test has been the proposal to make non-notification the default position.

The measures include:

· Removing the current presumption in favour of notification of resource consent applications (most applications are not notified now) and amending the criteria for when public notification is required on projects with more than minor effects on the wider environment.

We hope that the last lines mean that the effects beyond the immediately affected parties must be significant before they can trigger notification. At present all the immediately affected parties can give their written approval but the reporting officer can recommend notification because of mysterious effects on the wider community. It has always been difficult to see how effects beyond the immediate area can be more severe than those which failed to upset the immediate neighbours. Usually, such decisions reflect the prejudices of the planner rather than genuine identifiable effects.

Reintroducing “standing” and “security for costs” is an obvious first step to reducing frivolous and vexatious objections and presumably applies to objections to Mr and Mrs Smith's granny flat as well as to the next hydro dam.
The moves against objections from trade competitors should work, especially if reinforced by a few of the proposed punitive damages awards.
However, it is not clear if the proposed reforms will prevent Councils writing anti-trade competition policies into their own plans. For example, Wellington City Council has a proposed plan change openly intended to protect the CBD “golden mile” from competition from suburban centres. If Councils can continue down this path then the 'supermarket wars' will continue.

The Environmental Protection Agency will succeed in improving the process only if it maintains a solid scientific culture; one which promotes rigorous research and has no political agenda. Consequently, a better name would be The Environmental Standards Authority.

The changes in plan and policy preparation are bold and will hopefully produce the desired results. However, the proposal to limit appeals on policy statements to questions of law means that something like an air quality standard, or a standard on agricultural chemicals, cannot be challenged on the question of the scientific knowledge, or the quality of the surveys, even if the science has demonstrably moved on, and the surveys were demonstrably biased or poorly sampled.

The Minister of Conservations’ special powers of veto shall not be missed and the Ministry’s hyper-activity in objecting to plans and applications should be similarly curtailed. Why should the Minister of Conservation have special powers over the Coastline?

If fines are going to be raised, this increases the attraction of litigation as a source of Council Revenue – and it will be seized on. Surely, these fines should go into Treasury coffers for distribution.

There are few surprises in the proposed streamlining of consents for projects of national signficance, except for the decision to have such hearings before a Board of Enquiry rather than the Environment Court.

If major projects are referred directly to the Environment Court or Board of Enquiry dealing with the numerous submitters who are normally filtered through the Council Hearings will be a problem – if they are all to be heard and to be subject to cross examination then no time will be saved. This will need careful management.

I would also like to see the idea of turning the Environment Court into a Board of Enquiry for all decision making explored during the Select Committee process. There is much to commend it.

The total package probably deserves a B+, but could be an A or a C- depending on the precise wording of the Bill.

We must wait and see.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

6 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Owen knows full well the abuse Maori are inflicting upon developers and property owners. They are, in part, the cause of building cost inflation as they, as others, clip the ticket on the way thru. Reform of the RMA is long overdue, but it should address the issue of the graft going on within the RMA industry. It seems the National-Act government simply do not have the courage to address such a sensitive issue - so we will just keep on paying the graft!

Reply
Share

I see the person who commented above chose to be anonymous, and i can see why after reading his dribble. I would challange the person to give an actual example of Maori abusing the RMA. Out of the numerious cases where one may consider abuse of the RMA has occured none are from Maori, most are from green groups or business.
My advice for the person above, if you do not know what you are talking about it is better that you just dont say a word.

Reply
Share

Zane, an actual example: $20,000 paid to the Taniwha handlers to sooth cultural concerns about building a road over a peat swamp in Meremere. But I admit I could be wrong... maybe there really are ghosts and monsters that only Maori can see.

I agree Greens are also abusing the situation, as are some corporates. That merely shows how widespread the abuse by vested interest groups is, and how poorly the legislation has been drafted and administered. Those situations are all wrong - as wrong as the abuse from Maori vested interest groups.

Reply
Share

Searching the internet for commentary on the RMA Bill I came across this site. Although the NBR is well known for its right leaning stance, it can at times be relied upon to provide informative and current perspectives. What I am disappointed to see, is the publication accepting bigoted diatribe without moderating comment. Whilst accepting the tenets of free speech, surely it is not the intention of the editors or of Mr. McShane to turn an established publication into a circus?

Reply
Share

Zane has an go at anonymous for not stating a name, yet "Zane" is not exactly revealing his identity to the world.

Reply
Share

The Minister has special role in making decision in the coastal marine area, because he holds it on behalf of the crown. All other owners (including councils)have a say in how their land is used - How else would the public owners of the marine environment have a say on the use of land held in trust for their use ?

Mr mcShane hasn't said how many apepals are lodged by anyone. His actual figures on appeals lodged by DOC would be interesting - only a few applications are notifed so how could their possibly be many appeals - by DOC, Maori or anyone else ? MFE says less than 1% are appealed nationally out of about 52,000 applications made.

Reply
Share

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7878 -0.0004 -0.05%
AUD 0.9091 0.0005 0.06%
EUR 0.6356 -0.0003 -0.05%
GBP 0.5032 0.0001 0.02%
HKD 6.1123 -0.0013 -0.02%
JPY 92.8410 0.0020 0.00%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1201.1 7.690 2014-11-21T00:
Oil Brent 78.6 -0.120 2014-11-21T00:
Oil Nymex 76.5 0.710 2014-11-21T00:
Silver Index 16.4 0.260 2014-11-21T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5526.9 5526.9 5526.9 -0.56%
NASDAQ 4751.0 4751.6 4701.9 0.24%
DAX 9521.2 9736.1 9484.0 2.62%
DJI 17721.0 17894.8 17719.0 0.51%
FTSE 6678.9 6773.1 6678.9 1.08%
HKSE 23353.7 23508.0 23349.6 0.37%
NI225 17285.7 17381.6 17300.9 0.33%