Speech on the First Reading of the RMA

Mr Speaker, I move that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Bill now be read a first time.

At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee with an instruction that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 19 June 2009, and that Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Mr Speaker, the Resource Management Act needs fixing and, as promised, the Government is introducing a Bill to reform the RMA within 100 days of taking office.

Over the nearly 18 years since the RMA became law there has been growing criticism about the slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

Decision making processes under the RMA must become more efficient. The amendments in this Bill will provide timely and welcome support to other government measures to stimulate the economy.

To draft this Bill, I asked for input from local government and other stakeholders and I appointed a Technical Advisory Group in December last year to help evaluate options for reform. I thank the Group for its advice and commitment in working through the policy proposals, particularly over the summer break.

First, I confirm that the RMA will remain the principal statute for managing the use of our natural and physical resources. There are no changes to the purpose or principles of the RMA proposed - I believe they are sound. There are no changes to section 8 of the Act affecting Maori involvement, an issue I note was of strong concern to our colleagues in the Maori party.

However, this Bill does not just tinker with existing provisions - it will address problems that have been apparent for years. It will provide stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviours, new consent pathways, and it rationalises decision-making and existing consent categories.  

These amendments will have a significant impact on the processes under the Act that that have led to delay, uncertainty, frustration and avoidable costs.

The Bill does make changes to the level of public involvement under the RMA. This is necessary to achieve any real improvement to its operations.  I believe this Bill strikes a better balance between the public's right to be involved and the need for sensible and timely decisions. 

I reassure New Zealanders this rebalance will not mean a reduction in environmental quality.  Repetitive and costly consultation processes, broad appeal rights and time consuming reporting requirements can add tens of thousands of dollars and years to plan preparation and change processes.

Slow and overly bureaucratic processes do nothing for the environment.

This Bill provides for:

• more efficient decision making on infrastructure
• a reduction in the costs and delays of consenting
• the streamlining of planning processes and;
• the restriction of anti-competitive appeals motivated by trade competition and other vexatious and frivolous objections
• improved efficiency and effectiveness of national instruments and central government guidance
• the establishment of an Environmental Protection Authority
• an improvement in enforcement and increase compliance

Proposals of national significance 

The first trance of reforms deals with project of national significance. There are real problems in how long it is taking to get major infrastructure projects through the consenting process, particularly if they go through a local consent process and inevitably end up in the Environment Court.

We need only look at examples like Alpurt B that took nearly a decade and the Wellington City Bypass to see the need for reform.

The tricky balance we need to find is between recognising the national significance and importance of such projects but also realising that they will have impacts on the local community. It is a gross simplification to say that projects are just local or just national. That is why this Bill takes an innovative approach in creating a single Board of Inquiry process but with the capacity for local authorities to nominate board members, and an amendment to recognise the importance of local knowledge. It provides for a single step process that recognises both the local and national dimensions of such projects. The Boards will be chaired by a current or retired Environment Court judge to ensure their independence.

An Environmental Protection Authority is created to enable the direct application of such projects to a national body that will also be responsible for servicing the Board of Inquiry. We are also extending the definition of what is a project of national significance to recognise the importance of nationally infrastructure networks and to ensure timely decisions, a nine-month requirement for decisions from the date of notification.

As a transitional measure I intend that the EPA be established as a statutory office within the Ministry for the Environment.  Phase Two of the RMA reform will look at the broader functions of an EPA.

Vexatious submissions and appeals

The costs and delays caused by anti-competitive objections made by trade competitors fall on applicants, councils and the Courts.  Some of the highest costs are incurred in the so-called "supermarket wars", where proponents and opponents have spent years, and millions of dollars, fighting each other. The losers are families who've paid with higher grocery bills.

The Bill will also require third parties that have been supported, funded or encouraged by a trade competitor to disclose that information and there will be sanctions for non disclosure.  The Bill clarifies that the Environment Court can award indemnity costs to a party adversely affected and introduces a damages regime for proceedings brought by a person against a trade competitor.   

Consistent with pre-election policy announcements, the proposals reinstate the powers of the Environment Court to award security for costs.  This provides greater surety that cost awards will be paid, by requiring some parties to pay a form of bond up front, rather then have parties dissolve themselves to avoid paying those costs when proceedings conclude. 

Simplifying Decision Making and Streamlining consent process

Consent processes

Slow consent processes cost the economy and also come at a cost to the environment.

One of the most important changes proposed in the Bill is to enable resource consent applications and notices of requirement to be directly referred to the Environment Court with the local authority's agreement.  This will save years of argument at the local government level. 

I want councils to work harder to meet the timelines in the Act and for the public to feel they have greater recourse when consents are processed late. The Bill proposes that councils will be required to develop a discount policy in respect of late consent processing, within 12 months of enactment.  Councils must have a complaints process and, where the local authority is at fault, the applicant will receive a discount on the application processing fees and charges. It is simply not good enough that statutory timelines are being breached in nearly half of all resource consent applications.

Plan making

Plan making processes need to be streamlined too.  I consider it totally unacceptable that the average time it takes to prepare a plan under the RMA is more than eight years and that 17 years after this law came into effect five councils did not have operative plans.

Clearly, the administrative burden associated with plan preparation has contributed to the delays. Having two full rounds of submissions, summarising submissions, making decisions on each submission and then ensuring each submitter has an individual response to their submissions is mind-bogglingly complicated when councils can receive more than 30,000 submissions. It is little wonder that the cost of plans is costing ratepayers $130 million. This Bill will remove the laborious reporting requirements of councils when making plans.  

This Bill limits the requirement to seek further submissions on a plan (including a plan change), to pull back on the double submission process.

This Bill also removes the ability for appellants to make general challenges or seek the withdrawal of entire proposed policy statements and plans. This will stop unfocused and unhelpful appeals that have tied some councils up for years and imposed costs on others that stood to benefit from a new plan.

In some instances it makes sense for regional councils and territorial authorities of a region to combine to produce a single RMA planning document.  While some councils are already doing this, the Bill will clarify that the regional policy statement can be incorporated into a combined document and make it easier.

The Bill also proposes to remove the requirement for territorial authorities to review their plans every 10 years.  It allows for the council to review the plan as and when required.  Councils are best placed to know when plan provisions have become outdated. 

The other key reform proposed in the Bill is to limit appeals on policy statements, plans, plan changes or variations.  The appellant will still have the ability to seek the leave of the Environment Court for it to hear the merits of the appeal.  I consider this to be an essential part of the package of measures to free up the plan making process.    It is proper for the final policy decisions to be taken by the local authority and leave the Environment Court largely to resolve any outstanding points of law.    

Improvements in enforcement

This Bill makes significant improvements to the enforcement provisions of the RMA.

It will increase maximum penalties from $200,000 to $600,000 for corporate offenders and to $300,000 for private individuals.  These levels of fine have not been adjusted since the Act was introduced, and current levels do not send a strong enough message about the seriousness of some environmental offending.

This government does not see why it should be exempt from the same laws that apply to everyone else. This is patently unfair.  The Bill will remove the Crown's current immunity from prosecution and enable enforcement action to be taken if it breaches any provisions under the Act.

The Environment Court will have a specific power to review a consent if an offender breaches its conditions. This provides the Court with wider powers to address environmental offending where the most appropriate form of redress may not be a fine or jail term, but ensuring damage is repaired and the same practical steps put in place to stop further damage.

National Instruments

The Government has a range of other intervention tools to safeguard the environment and provide direction, such as National Policy Statements (NPS) and National Environmental Standards (NES). It is important that these tools can take effect promptly and efficiently.

The Bill enables a NPS to direct that a local authority must change the objectives and policies of policy statements and plans without the need for further local planning processes.   The Bill also limits appeals on such changes to plans and regional policy statements to points of law only.  The Bill will enable that NES to be referred to in plans without further process.

The Bill will enable NPS to be cancelled, postponed or restarted. It will also make it more explicit how NES relate to consents and enables minor amendments or corrections to be made to NES.

Closing

It has not been possible in this introductory speech to cover all of the hundred plus changes we are making to this Act. But I wish to table in the House today, the report of the Technical Advisory Group and I will also be realising the advice from officials, so people can be better informed as they make submissions to the Select Committee on the Bill.

This is an important and significant package of reforms to the RMA. I have been heartened by the wide support from officials across a wide range of Government agencies, from Local Government and from sector groups representing the agricultural, tourism, forestry, construction and manufacturing industries. There has also been support from environment groups for the fact that reform is necessary.

I openly acknowledge that the success of the reforms depends on getting the details right. That is why I want to signal to these groups and the Local Government and Environment Committee that I am very open to improvements to the RMA as this Bill goes through the Select Committee process. But just as this Bill is about timely decision making, with the recession and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment waiting, these reforms need to be made expeditiously.

Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.

I move that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 19 June 2009 and, that the Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the house, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders  187, 189, and 190 (1)(b) and (c).