Improving the RMA

Ministerial Address to the Local Government New Zealand Conference.
Aotea Centre, Auckland

Thank you for inviting me to speak today at this issues session on ‘Improving the RMA’.

You are the people at the forefront of implementing the Resource Management Act (RMA). And the people who can help identify priority changes that will improve the implementation of the Act.

In May I announced a programme of improvements planned for the RMA, and emphasised that protecting the environment would remain the cornerstone principle of the Act. I also made it plain that local communities would continue to be the decision makers for the environmental issues affecting them.

We are all familiar with the negative stories about the RMA. You know the types of concerns that are raised. And you also know that
·some of these concerns are real,
·some are simply indicative of the conflict involved in competing environmental goals,
·some problems have already been fixed – such as the delays with the Environment Court,
·and of course, there are the myths – the stories that are based on half truths or out and out fabrication.

The review is about identifying workable options to reduce delays and uncertainty about costs. It is also about improving the quality of processes and decision-making under the Act.

We have had fantastic buy-in to the review process to date. The message we have received loud and clear from all stakeholders, has been that the RMA is an important environmental safeguard.

Everyone from business people to environmental groups have acknowledged New Zealand's environment is our greatest asset.
We have rejected the calls of a few extreme voices that want to see the Act ripped apart for the sake of unfettered development. Quite frankly, that's not sensible, it's not necessary, nor is it what business itself have asked us to do.

We have identified a series of issues and are coming up with timely and well thought out solutions. The Resource Management Act can and should be made to work better for all New Zealanders.

The areas for improvement we are looking at include:
First – Achieving the right balance of national and local interests in the RMA – for example, by expressing the national interest better, or making better use of national instruments.

As the RMA stands, local authorities may increasingly find they are asked to consider projects that raise issues of national significance. Recent examples include the lack of planning to allocate water in the Waitaki catchment, or the need to integrate transport and land use planning documents in the Auckland region. Others on the horizon include Transpower's upgrade of electricity infrastructure.

I want local government to have the tools to consider these matters, or to “kick them elsewhere” for consideration. More use of national instruments is also an option – but this would need direct input from local government.

I certainly think the importance of strategic infrastructure needs to be clearly articulated. There is a need to better express the national interest, whether through improved national instruments or better engagement with local government.

Second – improving the design and process of local policy formulation – for example, by simplifying plan making processes, or providing better integration with other strategies or statutory processes.

When the RMA was passed, it was intended that plans would simplify decision-making. But when communities are faced with transitional plans, proposed plans, variations to proposed plans, and part operative plans – they find themselves in a planning quagmire.

Some councils avoid making changes to improve their plans in order to avoid the extra cost. And it can cost. Queenstown Lakes district has spent $15 million over 10 years on its district plan.

There is also confusion about how RMA plans relate to other strategies and plans such as ‘long term council community plans’ under the Local Government Act (2002).

I believe there must be ways to make the development of plans more straightforward.

With the next generation of plans on the way, there is an opportunity to improve the plan making process to ease the next phase of plan development.

Third – improving the consent decision-making processes. For example, by providing more timely processes for simple consents, or improving mediation or arbitration processes for appealing decisions.

Concerns are often raised about the quality of decisions on consents. This includes concerns about undue delays, lack of certainty for applicants, lack of consistency between local authorities, and perceptions of political bias.

There may be uncertainties about iwi consultation, the cost of procedures, or because of abuse of the process. Needless to say, the media is rife with concerns about processes surrounding major infrastructure projects.

I want to see a process that fits – that is appropriate for the project at hand; be it the building of a deck on your house or a new state highway.

Fourth – the allocation of natural resources. For example, by requiring plans for certain natural resources, such as water, or providing alternatives to the first come-first served approach.

Addressing the allocation of natural resources is a priority. In particular, providing certainty about entitlement and terms of renewal. Work on natural resource allocation complements other work going on as part of:
·The Water Programme of Action,
·The aquaculture reforms, and
·The establishment of national environmental standards.

Finally – Support measures for building capacity and promoting best practice. For example, through councillor accreditation of RMA decision-makers, or addressing the capacity and resources of local authorities.

Local authorities have steadily improved practice under the Act. But we would all agree there is scope for further improvement especially when individual councils under perform.

This challenge is as much about how central government can help to build capacity within local government. Legislative change alone cannot guarantee improved operation of the Act. It needs to be supported with best practice initiatives.

We Are Making Good Progress
From each of the areas that I have outlined, options will be selected to form a package of improvements. This will include:

Amendments to the Act: It's my job to introduce legislation to the House this year, and to bring it into force during the current term.
As part of the package, there will be initiatives established for encouraging best practice and to build capacity. Empowering local government and their communities to work better with the RMA is particularly important to me. The goals of the Act can’t be achieved if its implementation falls behind, or if people don’t understand how it works.

There will undoubtedly be more complex and strategic issues that need to be addressed through longer-term work. The review will identify these and help to set out a programme for further improvements.

My reference group is meeting again next week. I established this group to assist me as an independent sounding board on the workability of the proposals being developed. We have already met twice. The group is:
·Basil Chamberlain - chief executive of Taranaki Regional Council,
·David Hill - an experienced resource management practitioner,
·Shane Jones - a businessman experienced with resource management issues at both a national and community level,
·Kate Mitcalfe - an environmental lawyer with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and
·Graham Pinnell - a farmer, member of the electricity commission, and former professional engineer.

I asked the group to consider and comment on some of the possible improvements that have been proposed, including:
·A more balanced expression of national interest
·Improvements to National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standards processes to make them more flexible, less cumbersome and more directly effective
·Achieving more effective Regional Policy Statements and prescribing what they must address (eg. strategic infrastructure provision and “smart growth of cities”)
·Providing a clear mandate for government to require regional councils to develop plans to address specific issues
·Streamlining the plan making process – including removing further submissions
·Adopting less adversarial and more inquisitorial hearing approaches
·Requiring the majority of decision makers on hearings to be ‘accredited’
·Streamlining the Environment Court hearing to a focused ‘rehearing’ rather than de novo
·Improving the Call-in process

The views of most interested parties are well known and this has assisted in allowing the review to proceed at good speed. We have not sought formal submissions, but there have been opportunities for input. Some excellent thoughts and suggestions have come through.

There will, of course, be an opportunity to make submissions to the Select Committee on an amendment bill.
Conclusion
The Resource Management Act is a good one. We want to make it work better for all New Zealanders.

The Act is not fundamentally flawed. We propose to make improvements to the existing law to meet the challenges of the present and future. We can do that without taking an extreme position and compromising local people or the environment.