RMA reforms

Presently there is uncertainty to the future regulatory management of New Zealand’s environment under the RMA as the New Zealand Government is undertaking reforms of the RMA. The first phase of reforms was completed in 2009 with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streaming) Amendment Act 2009. Driving the changes to the RMA is concern

7 _{Pollution that is derived straight from the land as opposed to point source pollution that comes from a}

Environmental Management or Economic Development? 46 that resource management processes are costly and time consuming and that “the system is uncertain, difficult to predict and highly litigious” (Ministry for the Environment, 2013c, p. 6).

Proposed changes to the RMA would fundamentally rewrite Part 2, which drives the decisions made under the Act. Part 2 contains the purpose of the act in section 5. Sections 6, 7 and 8 outline principles intended to give guidance to the way in which the purpose is to be achieved. Matters of national importance in section 6 must be recognised and provided for by decision makers to achieve the purpose of the Act and decision makers must have particular regard to other matters outlined in section 7. Proposed changes to the Part 2 of the RMA will fundamentally change it by (Ministry for the Environment, 2013c; Palmer, 2013a):

- Combining section 6 and 7 into one set of ‘principles’; - Adding new development-focused principles into the RMA;

- Removing several existing environment-focussed matters from the RMA; - Weakening the majority of the remaining environment-focused elements; and

- Inserting a ‘methods’ section for councils to follow to perform functions and exercise powers under the RMA.

Combining sections 6 and 7 are based on the notion that too much emphasis is placed on environmental matters, overshadowing economic and social activities (Ministry for the Environment, 2013c). In other words, it is believed environmental matters have halted development, particularly the development of major infrastructure and the provision of land for housing. However, in 2010/11, less than one per cent (0.56%, 203 applications) of resource consent applications were declined (Ministry for the Environment, 2011c).

In the changes, new principles have been added including providing for: “the benefits of the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources”; “the effective functioning of the built environment including the availability of land for urban expansion, use and development”; and “the efficient provision of infrastructure” (Ministry for the Environment, 2013c, section 3.1.1), thus giving more weight to development. Existing matters protected under the Act that will be removed are amenity values, the intrinsic value of ecosystems and the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. Environmental principles that remain will be weakened by removing directive words such as “enhancement”, “maintenance” and “protection” and limiting protection to “specified” natural features and landscapes and areas of indigenous vegetation.

Environmental Management or Economic Development? 47 Other proposed changes to the RMA include amendment to Section 32 which requires a consideration of alternatives, benefits and costs when developing a plan, policy or regulation. Clause 69 proposes two economic effects that must be included in an assessment: economic growth opportunities that are anticipated to become unavailable; and employment opportunities that are anticipated to be provided or reduced (Wright, 2013). Specifying these two economic effects while failing to specify other effects will make an evaluation under section 32 unbalanced, resulting in economic effects been given more weight than environmental, social, and cultural effects (Wright, 2013).

Additionally, under Clause 69, benefits and costs in an evaluation under section 32 must be quantified where practicable. This will further accentuate the dominance of economic effects. This is because many aspects will not actually be valued as some of the environmental, social and cultural values are difficult, if not impossible, to quantity (as discussed in Chapter 3). If values can be quantified, they will be seldom expressed in dollars. In contrast, estimates of economic and employment effects are commonly, if not always, quantifiable in dollar terms. Monetary valuations are likely to be given more weight to decision-makers than more intangible benefits and costs (Wright, 2013).

Changes will also allow more resource consents to be processed without public notification. This will substantially limit the ability of submitters to put forward evidence regarding the environmental impacts of proposals (Palmer, 2013a). Already 96% of consents are processed without public notification (Ministry for the Environment, 2011c). Additionally, central Government will have the power to take individual consent decisions away from local councils as well as insert provisions in local council plans without any consultation (Oliver, 2013; Salmond, 2013).

Response to the changes

There have been differing views on the RMA changes. The dairy industry and the current Government support the changes while environmental groups and those working to protect or manage the environment generally oppose. Proposed amendments will affect the ability of the RMA to achieve its stated purpose. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and architect of the RMA, notes “the [unnecessary] proposed changes to Part 2 will significantly and seriously undermine environmental protection”, and “will lead to greater uncertainty and cost in the application and interpretation of the RMA” (Palmer, 2013a, p. 2). Palmer argues

Environmental Management or Economic Development? 48 that proper consultation and consideration is required and changes should be made only if they are needed after consultation decides that is so (Palmer, 2013a).

Fish and Game believe the proposed changes will “fundamentally change the context of the RMA” by destroying “its environmental protections” and pave “the way for further rampant exploitation of finite water resources” (Fish & Game, 2013b). Dame Anne Salmond has described the changes as “an attack on participatory democracy” (Oliver, 2013). Resource use with fewer protections will be promoted – “unsustainable and unchecked development at the expense of our environment” (Fish & Game, 2013b). Many groups support the move to shorten timeframes, improve planning processes and simplify planning documents to save time and money (Fish & Game, 2013b; Palmer, 2013a). However, it is argued that these processes can be rectified without changes to environmental safeguards (Palmer, 2013a). Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright says the RMA “should not become an economic development act” (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2013).

According to Environment Minister Amy Adams (current in 2013/pre-election 2014), the RMA reforms will “deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations” (Ministry for the Environment, 2013c, p. 5). Instead, it is argued the changes are trying to get better access to natural resources, particularly water for industry (Oliver, 2013). In support of the RMA reforms are Fonterra, Federated Farmers, Irrigation NZ, Horticulture New Zealand and Business NZ. Federated Farmers believes that the RMA currently “leans too far towards protection” (Federated Farmers, 2013a) and is “unfair, unpredictable and overly bureaucratic” (Federated Farmers, 2008).