Dialogue: Red tape ties development in tangled web

National environmental spokesman NICK SMITH says reforms are needed to overcome the delays, costs and uncertainty of the RMA.

The bureaucracy that has grown out of the Resource Management Act has New Zealand trapped in the economic slow lane. If we are serious about catching up with the living standards of other Western countries, we must reform this act.

Thousands of people sit in traffic jams because Transit New Zealand cannot get resource consents for new roads.

Homeowners flounder in getting consents to build a simple carport or a patio.

Investors abandon the country frustrated with the delays and uncertainty over developments.

The problem has been highlighted by Competitive Auckland, the Knowledge Wave conference and by the ministerial panel on compliance costs.

The objections are not about high environmental standards but the cost and complexity of 25,000 pages of council rules and the years it takes to get decisions.

The Government has ignored the problem. Proposals introduced by National in 1999 to amend the act have been gutted.

Instead, the Government has given millions of dollars in legal aid to objectors, removed provisions that allow costs to be awarded and is making non-notification decisions appealable.

National has developed a package that tackles the delays, costs and uncertainty caused by the act. We want to retain the sound principles behind the original legislation, but give it a dose of pragmatism to make it work better.

The most common complaint about the act concerns time delays. There are 3000 cases - involving investments worth billions of dollars - waiting for Environment Court hearings. On average, these will take more than two years to resolve.

Transit New Zealand told the Government that it could take up to seven years to get a motorway consent. Singapore, which has tougher environmental laws than New Zealand, can process consents in seven days.

These delays are a result of idealistic provisions which allow anyone to object to anything. For a $55 filing fee, anyone can further appeal, effectively delaying the consent for years. The process is open to abuse.

A new hotel complex at the famous Punakaiki Rocks on the West Coast was put on hold for three years by an objector who did not like tourists.

This objection cost the young family who developed the sensitively-designed complex more than a million dollars, and jeopardised 20 jobs.

Businesses can dream up an environmental reason to disrupt a competitor. The objections lodged by Tranz Rail against Solid Energy's plan for a coal jetty at Westport had far more to do with the loss of business across the Transalpine rail link than protecting aquatic life at Cape Foulwind.

The act can easily be exploited for commercial advantage.

The problem has become so great that "backhanders" are commonplace. The Herald exposed the planned deal for the withdrawal of an appeal over a water right for Carter Holt Harvey in exchange for a million dollar grant to Tainui.

This growing culture is undermining New Zealand's reputation as one of the most honest places to do business.

National wants to limit participants to those who are directly affected by a development.

We want to narrow the vague definition of environment to ensure it cannot be exploited for commercial advantage.

We believe that financing a mediation service will do far more than providing legal aid for objectors. We believe the courts need to have the power to award costs and damages where parties abuse the process.

The other big concern is uncertainty. A complex mix of thousands of district and regional rules has cost ratepayers well over $200 million to develop.

The answer lies in consistent national environmental standards. We cannot justify 79 different rules for subdivision.

We need clear, concise rules focused on protecting the environment.

The consideration of individual consents should be left to independent commissioners.



National will remove ministers from individual consents. Their job is to get the law and policy right for all applicants.

No problem is as contentious as the requirements of the act to consult Maori. Too often, developers undertake the process in good faith, only to get burnt by not consulting the right iwi

The responsibility for consulting iwi should rest with public authorities, not applicants, and iwi should be required to register with councils their areas of interest.

The Resource Management Act relies too much on the performance of each District, City and Regional Council. Councils should be subject to regular audits of their administration of the Act.

* Nick Smith is the National Party's environment spokesman.