Our guest RMA expert, offers an analysis of National’s proposed changes to our resource management framework:
National’s phase one RMA review document looks good at a first glance, but after a detailed look fish hooks, and the right-wing agenda, are more and more evident.
The phase one review is clearly set up to bulldoze through big development at the expense of local participation and involvement in decision-making. The review rightly claims that it will not change the environmental priorities of the Act, but it does set up a system where there will be much stronger Central Government control over RMA policy, and allows the Minister for the Environment to set national RMA policy as they see fit, without public involvement or recourse, and with immediate effect at the local level. At present local authorities adapt their policies through the RMA process in response to central government policy, allowing for local level participation and involvement. National’s plans will bypass this step giving national level policy immediate effect throughout NZ, regardless of opposition by local authorities/communities.
It seems that National have heeded to professional and public opinion by removing the two worse aspects of their RMA reforms: The removal of references to the Treaty of Waitangi, and the narrowing of the definition of the environment. However, there may be a few fish hooks remaining in National’s phase one review.
The proposed streamlining of processes by the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency to manage large ‘nationally significant’ applications would result in some loss of local representation and participation. At the moment, when there is a large cross-district infrastructure project, each Council makes its decision in its own chamber for its own jurisdiction. Under these provisions, these decisions could be made by a Board of Inquiry in Wellington – nowhere near the location of the activity. This Board would be chaired by an Environment Court Judge, with local authorities only able to nominate board members (there are no requirements for the board to accept nominations). This would mean that the Board’s hearings could be further away from local communities and far more formal, thus removing the ability of communities to easily participate in decision-making on major projects. National’s intention here to bulldoze through major infrastructure projects is quite clear, particularly as they intend to make the recognition of “operational infrastructure needs of a nationwide network utility operator” a matter of national importance, the highest priority the RMA can give* (i.e: build your transmission lines wherever you like, as they’re a matter of national importance!).
The amendment Bill will also set up an Environmental Protection Authority, which will centralise some unspecified regulatory roles. The RMA was set up to allow local communities to decide how they want their community, so centralised decision making would be a backward step in this process. The phase one document doesn’t say much about centralised regulations (other than that they will be implemented by the EPC), so perhaps these will be coming out at phase two? Further, having an EPA managing national environmental goals gives the Central Government the ability to set a national goal without appeal (you can only appeal local authority’s policies to the Environment Court, not the Central Government policy), that could potentially be contrary to the wishes of a local community. For example, a district that has large hydro potential could object to having renewable energy generation as a national goal because of the loss of recreation, eco-systems, and community valued landscapes in their districts, but the government could ignore this and set up a framework where the said district’s ability to participate in decisions about hydro scheme in its jurisdiction is marginalised or removed altogether.
The amendment seeks to remove frivolous, vexatious and anti-competitive objections, which seems like a good idea. The RMA currently does not allow the consideration of trade competition, but this will limit big corporate abilities to fight each other in the Environment Court, which should be a good thing. However, with these changes the devil will be in the detail. There is the potential here for the Government to try to disallow the consideration of economic effects. Such a change could have negative implications. For example, the construction of a shopping mall/big box complex in the middle of nowhere/suburbia can have huge economic effects on long established commercial centres that have been invested in by the community/Council (i.e. city centre beautification), economic costs to the community (i.e. roading) and the loss of urban vibrancy. Also, these provisions could be used against environmentalist if their arguments are considered to be frivolous. Therefore, the wording of any bill will need to be thoroughly debated and investigated to ensure that these changes aren’t a veil for something more sinister.
There is a heap of small process oriented changes suggested. The intentions behind some of them seem to be benign, in that they are set up to improve RMA processes. However, the Government will have to look at the implementation issues with some of these matters, as they may result in more applications being declined by Councils or more time delays as Council policies are updated. No doubt there will be some lengthy cost benefit analysis needed as these provisions go through select committee. There is also at least one nasty little fish hook in these small procedural changes. Under ‘improving national instruments’ the government will seek to provide the Minister for the Environment with powers to cancel, postpone and restart a national policy statement development process before it is gazetted. This means that all the NPSs started and awaiting being gazetted by the Labour/Green government can be instantly removed without public debate or act of parliament. This would affect NPS around renewable energy, climate change, and C02 emissions, amongst others.
It is pretty clear that the overall intent of the amendments is to clear the way for development, both at a local scale where consultation and proper process could be reduced, and at a national scale for ‘nationally significant projects’ where public participation and local level decision-making and involvement will be reduced or removed altogether.
It also flags a key philosophical change away from local representation and decision-making and towards centralised planning and decision-making. The biggest risk here is that the RMA is set up for local decision and policy making, with guidance from Central Government national policy. The RMA doesn’t give anyone the ability to challenge national policy in the Environment Court, thus giving more weight to national policy removes the ability of New Zealanders to legally challenge policy that directly affects their lives (i.e. if you own land that someone wants to build power lines over). At present, local authorities consider national policy when making their plans/policy statements. Under National’s changes, Government policy would have immediate effect, regardless of local opinion.
It seems this ‘phase one’ review aims to set up a system that makes it easier for all development to be considered, and big development to be pushed through, but doesn’t explicitly change the Act’s environmental priorities. Does this mean that the following phase two review will be the introduction of criteria and priorities that give greater weighting to developers over eco-systems, local communities,etc? Or will this be achieved by removing Labour/Green environmentally oriented National Policy Statements (without act of parliament or public debate) and the introduction of development friendly national policy policy that can’t be challenged in any Court room or local council chamber?
Also as a side note, the Dompost reported “Prime Minister John Key saidthe rewrite of the Act, touted as its most comprehensive overhaul since it became law in 1991” the phase one review is the result of six brain storming sessions of seven individuals (National’s TAG group) since mid-December hardly the most comprehensive RMA debate since 1991! Especially considering the years of work that went into Labour/Green’s 2003 amendment and
national policy statements
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress