You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, stick it in the consent process and you wave it all about…

The latest round in the decade-long dance of the RMA hokey cokey is under way – and National has pulled back from putting its whole body in.
Almost every year since 1998 Parliament has seen at least one bill changing the Resource Management Act.

This is despite successive ministers for the environment – from both the main parties – insisting the legislation is basically pretty good but a few bits are a bit of a problem. Oh, and that peace in the Middle East is a more likely prospect than some local councils developing a coherent and efficient resource consenting process.

National’s election policy had several key points and all but the first were included in today’s announcement by Environment Minister Nick Smith:

• Narrow the definition of ‘environment’ to natural and physical resources and not include ‘people and communities’ or other social and economic factors
• Include specific requirements for consultation with iwi rather than the broad requirement to act within the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
• Reduce the number of consent categories from five to three
• New powers to reject frivolous and vexatious objections, and also reinstate the Environment Courts powers to award costs against such objections
• Priority consenting of major infrastructure projects
• An independent complaints mechanism against councils for poor consenting process and requirement on councils to waive fees if statutory time periods are breached.

The first two have been dropped. Narrowing the definition of “environment” would have had unforeseen consequences in the courts – while removing the Treaty clause would have had highly foreseeable consequences with the Maori Party, whose support National needs.

There is little doubt substantial change is needed.

One report, by Ernst & Young, found widespread use of the resource consent process by businesses to delay their competitors; a need for more guidance to councils from central government over what is a nationally important project; and that many resource consents would be better taken out of the councils and to other bodies.

That report was made to the then-National government in 1997. National introduced changes in 1998 but these were not passed before the party lost the 1999 election.

There has been a lot of tinkering since then.

Today’s announcement does make a more substantial leap. The most important part is allowing applicants for projects of national importance to apply directly to the Environmental Protection Authority – a new agency being put together out of parts of the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The EPA can then refer the application to a board of inquiry made up of experts in the field.

This bringing in of inputs outside the highly politicised resource consent process is the most significant change in National’s bill, which will be introduced when Parliament re-convenes next week.

Environment Minister Nick Smith says this is because many types of council are simply unable to cope with applications for projects of national importance.

They are also in the invidious position under the current law of having to rule on such applications as well as form a view on their desirability (or otherwise) on behalf of their ratepayers.

The current proposal from Meridian Energy for a dam on the Mokihinui is a case in point, Smith says.

“The Buller District Council is one of the country's smallest and they have to deal with a 4000-page application. It’s probably being processed by one guy and it’s the same guy who does building consents and dog control.”