Resource Management

What is the RMA

Have your say

RMA Links

Submissions

Threats to the Resource Management Act

Urgent action for 'clean green' NZ

A coalition of 13 national organisations has written to Prime Minister Helen Clark urging her to defend the Resource Management Act (RMA).

The RMA protects many of the things people care about. It is the law that local and central government use to limit air, soil and water pollution, protect lakes and rivers and safeguard against extinctions.

Forest and Bird uses the RMA to help protect nature from harm. We seek to have local and regional rules to limit the destruction of wetlands, native forests and important landscapes. We also have our say on projects that will damage the environment.

We now need your help to protect this key environmental law.

Forest and Bird negotiated an agreement under the Resource Management Act with Environment Southland that will protect Doubtful Sound from oil pollution and biosecurity hazards caused by super-tankers. Photo: Fiordland Travel

RMA Review

The Government is reviewing the RMA in response to criticism of the law by business lobbies, opposition political parties and some Cabinet Ministers. Proposals being considered in the review could undermine environmental protection and prevent public participation in important decisions.

The RMA's detractors say it is holding back the economy. Yet no one has been able to provide credible evidence to back this claim. The economy is growing and building consents are at record levels. In fact fewer than 300 out of 49,000 resource consents are declined annually.
The Government has failed to provide evidence to justify many of its proposed reforms.

Cypress mine proposal: Forest and Bird is going to court to prevent the beautiful tussock grassland and kiwi habitat (far left) from looking like the neighbouring Stockton mine (left). Amending Part II to account for the national interest would make it even more difficult to protect such places from destruction. Photos: P Lusk

A return to Muldoon's 'Think Big'?

In the late 1970s, then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon created the National Development Act which was used to speed up development projects in the 'national interest'. It was hugely controversial and led to environmentally and economically unsound decisions.
Now the Government is proposing a range of measures to add more consideration of the 'national interest' in RMA decisions. One of the proposals is for a new fast-track process that would deny people the right to appeal decisions on major projects to the Environment Court. RMA Minister David Benson-Pope told the news media at a recent media conference that the 'national interest' could become the predominant factor in decisions on some projects.
No evidence has been presented to justify these changes. However officials prepared a draft Ministerial paper that included a list of 39 major projects - mines, coal-fired power stations and even a prison - that they considered were examples of the kinds of projects that would be suitable for the new fast track process.

The RMA already provides for economic outcomes by enabling "social economic and cultural wellbeing" (s5) and the "efficient use and development of natural and physical resources"(s7).

Other Key Issues

Shutting out the public
The RMA was intended to be a people's statute with public participation in decisions that affect people and the environment. This principle of public participation is being eroded. 'Limited notification' enacted last year was aimed at reducing public participation. New proposals to make the Environment Court more expensive and make district and regional council hearings more formal will further erode public participation. Local councils will have the power to strike out submissions from people in the community.

Councils prevented from setting more stringent standards than the Government
The Government is proposing to establish 'absolute' environmental standards. Local communities will not be allowed to set environmental standards that are more stringent than the Government's 'absolute' standards. Even when local councils are allowed to set more stringent environmental standards than the Government they may have to provide some form of special justification.

National Policy Statements to promote infrastructure, not the environment
It is good that the Government wants to prepare more National Policy Statements. These statements give increased national direction about resource management matters and this needed for the protection of the coast, rivers and biodiversity. Unfortunately the Government is proposing to short-circuit the process for developing National Policy Statements and is making infrastructure, not the environment, its priority for new National Policy Statements. The Government's announcement made no reference to a Biodiversity National Policy Statement in spite of the policy statement already being under development.

Whole of Government statements
The Department of Conservation (DOC) currently advocates for conservation through the Resource Management Act. This work would be undermined if the Government starts developing 'whole of Government' statements on major infrastructure proposals. The powerful economic ministries such as Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development would tend to dominate in decision-making at the expense of conservation. This would be a move back to the bad old days before DOC was established.

Applicants allowed to hide the effects of their proposals
The Government is also proposing to allow applicants the opportunity to refuse to answer requests from councils for further information when their assessment of environmental effects is inadequate. The Government argues that councils will decline those applications where information is not adequate, however this is not realistic. Instead it is possible that inadequately assessed projects will get the green light, because difficult issues will be avoided.

Some Good Proposals

Appeal rights on notification
Councils frequently deny people their right to participate in resource consent applications by wrongly allowing the decision to be processed without public notification. Currently, the only way to rectify this is through judicial review at the High Court - an expensive and uncertain process. The Government is proposing to allow appeals on notification to the Environment Court. This will lower costs and will encourage councils to notify more resource consents.

The Government is not proposing to make this change immediately, so encourage the Government to do it now.

More resources to improve local government performance
The Government is proposing a range of measures to improve local government performance without weakening the RMA. These proposals include:
- Mandatory accreditation of councillors
- Targeted assistance for specific councils needing support
- Enhanced capacity for the Ministry for the Environment to take a leadership role
- Better coordination between agencies monitoring council performance

It is important that the Government knows that these positive proposals to lift the performance of local government are supported. It will encourage them to adopt the proposals and ensure that they realise that our approach to the RMA review is a balanced one.

Forest and Bird's Proposals for improving the RMA

• Keep the purpose and principles (Part II ) of the RMA the way they are so that the RMA continues to enable development subject to environmental bottom lines. Amending Part II would smooth the way for big developments at the cost of the environment and communities, who will also have to waste time and money changing district and regional plans. These changes will also lead to years of uncertainty and delays as lawyers revisit the well established case law.
• No 'whole of Government' statements that will politicise the process and undermine good environmental decision making
• Maintain the current call-in and preserve people's Environment Court appeal rights.
• Implementing national standards and policy statements that will provide national direction, ensure environmental bottom lines are being met, cut administration costs and increase consistency throughout the country.
• Introduce appeal rights on notification so that people who are wrongly excluded from the decision-making process can exercise their rights
  
• Increasing support for local councils that are struggling to meet their obligations under the RMA because they lack expertise or funding. More help from central government will make a huge difference to the RMA's implementation.
• Making more use of existing processes, in particular encouraging greater use of pre-hearing conferences at council level and mediation at court level to allow parties an opportunity to sort out the issues; this will reduce costs and result in better decisions.
• State of the Environment Reporting to ensure that communities are setting appropriate priorities and addressing environmental concerns in their area.
  
  

Struggling local councils: Wairoa District Council is struggling with its RMA responsibilities because it lacks resources and has little or no support from central government. The results are the destruction of native forests like this one. Photo: DOC

Take Action Now!

• Contact Government Ministers and remind them that the RMA is important for New Zealand's clean green image and economic advantage. Remind them that New Zealanders value their environment and tell them to not change Part II of the RMA.
  
  
• Contact your local MP and remind them that New Zealanders don't want economic growth to impact on their environment or quality of life - tell your MP about our proposals.

Further RMA Information

• August 2004 RMA MfE Review Paper: Proposals Released Under the OIA
• August 2004 Briefing on the RMA review
• June 2004 Briefing on the RMA review
• Letter to the Prime Minister

This page was updated on 23 March, 2007