Resource Management Act frustrates investment and projects

Will changes to the Resource Management Act work? ANNE GIBSON reports.

Motorists stuck in traffic jams on roads north of Auckland are in good company when they curse the lack of progress on the Northern Motorway extension.

The Auckland regional manager of Transit New Zealand, Wayne McDonald, is also frustrated by the delay in getting the project through the hurdles posed by the Resource Management Act.

Mr McDonald, an engineer who worked on the Sky Tower project, noted that it took six years for this project to go through the planning, consent and objection processes, but just two years to build it.

"Anyone who wants to make an investment in New Zealand is facing a tremendous hurdle and a lot of people are finding it easier to invest in Australia instead," he said.

Transit NZ calculates that $1 million worth of community benefits is lost for every week which passes without the Northern Motorway being extended.

But under the act, the delays can mount as opponents of a project, such as the motorway, use every opportunity to fight on through resource consent hearings, the Environment Court - with its big backlog of cases - and beyond.

Last August, the Environment Court finally rejected appeals against resource consents for the Orewa-to-Puhoi section of the motorway, raising hopes of the road opening in late 2003.

But then one of the objectors further appealed, this time to the High Court, and the project was put on hold again.

The result of that appeal, heard in the High Court at Auckland this month, is expected soon.

A consultant to Transit New Zealand, Elena Trout, said it was in the national interest that this section of motorway be completed. Unfortunately, she said, minority interests had taken precedence over the majority and the result was a dangerous piece of road which inevitably would result in deaths.

In opting for the approach embodied in the Resource Management Act, Elena Trout said, "New Zealanders have gone for consensus and lost the desire to be really positive.

"The high jump is getting higher for business. We shouldn't rape and pillage the environment, but there needs to be a balance."

But frustration with the act goes far beyond motorways. Projects from housing developments and multi-million processing plants to factory extensions and warehouse expansions are caught in its web.

Partly to blame is the plodding rate of the Environment Court and a wait of sometimes three years to get a hearing.

But there are also concerns about the different approach of local authorities, the opportunity for objectors to delay even the most worthwhile projects interminably and uncertainty over the outcome.

The chief executive of the Employers Federation, Anne Knowles, said: "It is discouraging investment and being used as an anti-competitive device.

"The way the consent process is structured brings delays and uncertainty for business and encourages competitors to lodge objections.

"The fund set up by the Government for environmental groups to access in order to lodge objections is clearly tilting the balance against development."

Auckland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett said the act was applied inconsistently, that processing in the Environment Court was too slow due to understaffing and the city was suffering, with holdups of up to eight or nine years in some cases.

The president of the Manufacturers Federation, David Moloney, said: "The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. It's protecting the environment to a ridiculous extent, at the expense of good business practice. There's got to be a better balance - trying to grow the economy without being unduly hampered."

The Government-appointed panel looking into ways of cutting red tape - estimated a decade ago to cost business $1.88 billion annually - has been told that the act is one of the main laws imposing big costs on business.

Prime Minister Helen Clark received a similar message last week from Japanese timber company Juken Sangyo, which she was trying to woo to lift its investment here.

Juken, which has injected $400 million since 1990, cited the act as a big barrier to any expansion, along with workforce problems. Where it chooses to locate its new processing plant depends on how user-friendly New Zealand will be.

Economic Development Minister Jim Anderton agreed that the Japanese had a point. "It's the process that seems to frustrate people, it's not the decisions," he said, vowing to refer the matter to the Ministry of Economic Development.

The bill to change the act is at select committee stage and due to go back to the House next month.

Changes could include narrowing the definition of environment so that trade competitors cannot use the act for their own social or economic purposes; a limited notification provision to give greater certainty to applicants; a move to improve efficiency and reduce inconsistency with contestable consent processing; and a provision to allow independent commissioners to hear and make final decisions on resource consent applications.

Rebecca Macky, a Bell Gully lawyer specialising in environmental law, said there were signs of hope for change.

"The new Environment Court principal judge, Joan Allin, has signalled her awareness of the problems. Hopefully, that will lead to changes which will speed up the court's processing time.

"If the court speeds up, it could take the pressure off calls for amending the act because it's the uncertainty people hate. Uncertainty is risk and if you can get into the court within two to three months of an appeal being filed, it's more acceptable than the current two years - the holding costs [in that period] are devastating."

* Tomorrow, the Business Herald has the views of two people from different sides of the resource management divide.

Links

Ministry for the Environment

Hopper

Transit New Zealand