National in fast lane on roading

"No bloody taniwha" will stop National from pushing through a new road.

Or so says transport spokesman Maurice Williamson, who has promised sweeping changes to the Resource Management Act to speed up developments.

"We will not have roads delayed by arguments over the home of the taniwha," he said, referring to holdups building the Waikato Expressway.

The act was "a significant barrier to dealing with problems in our roading network in a timely manner", he said.

"There have been cases where getting the consents to build just one major road has taken seven or eight years. Labour and the Greens killed off National's bid to make changes in 1999."

National is promising the introduction of a substantial amendment bill within three months of being elected and has pledged to pass it within nine months.

Its hallmarks are:

* Scrapping legal aid for objectors.

* Introducing mechanisms to prevent vexatious and frivolous objections.

* Allowing for direct referral to the Environment Court.

* Rewriting parts of the act inconsistent with its commitment to having one law for all, by removing references to the Treaty of Waitangi.

* Requiring greater recognition of private property rights in land.

John Hassan and Kate Dick, Chapman Tripp lawyers in Wellington, have written a paper which points to many more changes to come, regardless of who wins the election.

"Significant further reforms to how the RMA allocates water, geothermal, discharge to air rights and other resources should be expected," they wrote in their newsletter Counsel.

In July, National leader Don Brash and environment spokesman Nick Smith released their policy on the act, calling for an overhaul to address the country's "roading and electricity infrastructure crisis" and to attract investment to industries such as forestry and manufacturing.

Business groups welcomed the policy then, but the Green Party, Labour and at least one environmental group claimed it would override local communities. Associate Environment Minister David Benson-Pope said National's policy was "Think Big in drag".

The Government's changes to the act have not been entirely popular.

When the amendments were tabled in December, Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said they would fast-track "giant transmission lines, motorways, large dams and coal-burning power stations".

Greg Whitten, the national president of the Property Council of New Zealand, called for the act to be overhauled, saying it gave no certainty or uniformity to his sector, which comprises property developers, investors, institutional owners, consultants and other professionals.

"A building owner in Napier might get approval for a building without any problems, but one in Hamilton proposing the same thing could be dealt with in a different way," Whitten said.

The taniwha near Hamilton was a good example of how protesters could hold up a project "at phenomenal costs to you but at little cost to them".

He said the act's attempt to capture every environmental issue was always doomed and the property industry remained sceptical about whether this year's amendments would help.

A showdown between two supermarket rivals in Auckland has seen the act come in for more criticism.

Foodstuffs (Auckland) general manager property strategy, Murray Jordan, said the the act was open to abuse by being used for anti-competitive purposes to stop him completing the new Pak'N Save supermarket at Wairau Park on the North Shore.

But Richard Umbers, chief executive of Progressive Enterprises, which won a decision against Foodstuffs in the High Court at Auckland in June, said objections were based more on an inability to take full account of traffic effects than on an anti-competitive basis.

Foodstuffs is now off to the Court of Appeal.

Another showdown over the act came when Aucklander Josephine Grierson opened her new Fox discount outlet centre on the North Shore in the face of opposition from mall owners and managers Westfield and a Northcote lobby group.

While commercial interests are using the act to argue over specific developments, some political parties want the legislation beefed up.

The Greens want the act strengthened and criticise what they call the "key environmental law being repeatedly weakened to smooth the path of developers".

They intend to:

* Uphold the original principles of the RMA - environmental protection and public participation.

* Increase environmental legal aid so citizen groups can take part in RMA cases with good legal, planning and scientific advice.

* Develop national policy statements and national environmental standards to set environmental bottom lines with councils able to set higher standards.

* Encourage councils to enforce consent conditions to protect the environment.

As for United Future, it wants the act reviewed every two years.

Party leader Peter Dunne said it should be audited more regularly "to make sure that it's providing certainty, shortening timelines and reducing user costs - and who knows we might even get the odd V8 race back into this country".

"This complex legislation has been improved twice already and will be further improved, but it needs monitoring on a regular basis to keep it serving the country's best interests."

But farmers want an entirely different RMA, arguing against crippling compliance costs.

"Not only can the cost of getting a resource consent for, say, a dam for stock watering exceed the cost of actually building the dam," said Federated Farmers spokesman Graeme Peters, "but there are also hidden costs associated with land use restrictions on such things as bush clearance and wetland drainage."

Resourceful policies

* National wants amendments to stop the fostering of anti-competitive behaviour and to remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi.

* Labour has already made amendments this year to speed up consent for projects of national significance and has strengthened council powers on planning issues.
* Greens want the act made stronger to give more environmental protection.

* NZ First wants a thorough revision to improve processes and procedures, reduce compliance costs and clarify expectations and responsibilities.

* United Future has backed this year's amendments but wants biennial reviews.