Adams hits back at 'scaremongering' over RMA proposals
Environment Minister Amy Adams is taking a combative approach to early criticism from environmental groups of the government's proposed changes to the Resource Management Act, saying the critics are "out of touch with New Zealanders".
Fundamental reform proposals for the 22-year-old RMA legislation were published yesterday with a raft of measures to give much greater power to the central government to cut through resource use roadblocks, simplify local government planning and limit the extent of objections to new developments.
Ms Adams did not name Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright among the critics of the proposals, but Dr Wright – an independent officer of parliament charged with oversight for environmental policy – said earlier today the proposals are "unbalanced".
That follows criticism by lobbyist group the Environmental Defence Society, which described some of the proposed changes as anti-democratic and "deeply troubling".
However, Ms Adams says the critics are out of touch and "scaremongering" and that "core environmental protections have been maintained in the RMA and will, in many cases, be strengthened by the government's proposals".
"The simple fact is the RMA has become cumbersome, uncertain and highly litigious. If these groups cannot understand this, then they are out of touch with everyday New Zealanders," she says.
"These groups need to get out of the office and talk to communities and businesses. They will tell them what they have told me – they are facing years and years of uncertainty while decisions are made whether a project can or cannot proceed.
"In most cases, it is not about whether a particular project can or cannot proceed, it is about the time and cost to reach that decision."
Ms Adams also dismisses claims that the proposals unreasonably interfere with local decision-making.
"Councils have been let down by successive governments taking a hands-off approach to major issues for far too long. It has been hugely unfair on councils and it is now time for the government to step up and offer more support.
"New Zealanders are looking to central government to show strong leadership."
In her critique, Dr Wright said the proposals strengthened economic considerations relative to environmental.
"The RMA's fundamental purpose is to make sure that environmental effects are taken into consideration when decisions are being made about using our resources. It is not, and should not become, an economic development act.
"There is a sense in the changes that the environment is considered the enemy of economic progress despite the fact that a large part of our economy is built on our environmental credentials."
(BusinessDesk)
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions11
Dr Wright is being disingenuous. The RMA is being interpreted as requiring zero impact on the environment even to the point of requiring buildings to be invisible and paint colours to merge with plants and earth. This is madness and a denial of our humanity and creativeness. Frankly these people are intellectual pygmies who think they can deny any further progress for our civilization as well as two millenia of architectural innovation.
Progress for our civilisation will be allowed to blossom when "intellectual pigmies" like the above writer learn that the environment is central to a healthy economy and society. The RMA is not intended to stifle creativity. I'd like to see the comment about paint colours backed up with an example.
You show your ignorance. The paint colours allowed in Russell township comprise every shade of mud and grey plus a sickly yellow. The recently granted resource consent for a service station in Orongo Bay specifies paint colours having less than 40% reflectance. There are blanket requirements for paint colours in all local coastal areas.
Paint colour has nothing to do with environment. It is merely one example of many I could have cited which goes far beyond desirable environmental protection.and is simply morons meddling destructively with other peoples' lives.
So do you think the environment is worth protecting at all? I agree that if the rma is being used to dictate minutae like paint colours, then it goes too far. Criticism is easy. Whats your solution Alan Wilkinson?
My solution is simple - better property rights. When you own a property you should have the right to enjoy it and use it free from encroachment on your sunlight, your reasonable peace and quiet, clean air, and stable uncontaminated ground. Anyone wishing to do something that infringes those rights of any neighbour should have to obtain a consent from those neighbours which may involve a commercial contract with costs and conditions.
Then fire all the bureaucrats and planners and let New Zealanders get on with their lives.
It sounds like more urban sprawlling, more roads, more expensive infrastructure, more pollution so a bunch of property developers get richer. Thats not the future for Auckland and NZ in general. I am so glad next year it will be a general election. The National Party is all about making their mates richer. Looking forward to the government change next year to bring some balane back.
Ah, so to do your bit no doubt you are already living in a concrete shoebox stacked 8 stories high?
Or are you just another pious hypocrite who once they have their own house and land would deny that to anyone else.
rubbish, you can't do sod all unless it fits with agenda 21. and, that certainly isn't much good for anyone. trouble is both national and labour are pushing that barrow.
This issue is potentially the election issue of 2014. There are too many everyday people out there who are innocent victims of the self interest and frankly professional corruption that the RMA has become.
we are doomed unless rma is repelled; that act has been abused (realility has little now to do will protecting enviroment) all it has acheived is having alllow council to run up huge debt - because councuil are run by poorly minded people -
core problem is debt - that leads to levies & rate increases - parliment must restrict council powers (to collecting rubbish) and force then to sell down assests to clear debt and, not allow it to be rebuilt
The worst part of the RMA is this nonsense entitled "affected" person or party. To give you an example of how MAD this is, consider this : a Chinese person who has never visited this country, has no nexus ( sorry for the big word councillors) with anything in New Zealand MAY lodge an appeal under the RMA.
If I were to be mad enough to journey to Mars, I could object to something in a RMA application, state that I want to be heard on the matter in person, and then delay the whole matter until ( if) 5 return from my Martian escapade. Such is the madness of "anyone can object".