The state of our waterways is one of the costs of the failure of our Resource Management Act.
The state of our waterways is one of the costs of the failure of our Resource Management Act.
After 30 years our most progressive and holistic piece of legislation – the Resource Management Act – is about to get a thorough overhaul, something which stakeholder groups on all sides are welcoming.
That reaction alone proves reform of the act is due, if not overdue.
But is its reputationas a "difficult" law entirely justified? Or has circumstance and a good deal of tinkering by way of amendment caused it to fray?
Having worked closely with the RMA through its first decade in existence and helped "bed in" the first district plan approved under the act (for the Hauraki Gulf Islands) I'm somewhat dispirited with how things have gone since.
Because the original act was world-leading for embracing all aspects of planning governance while setting the environment, community, and cultural values on a par with economic interests – the "four wellbeings" which it held as its primary purpose to equally protect and enhance.
Likewise because it was designed to consider these things objectively rather than prescriptively; on their merits rather than by pre-determined detailed rules.
And that was also its basic flaw: in adopting an academically moral view of human nature it presupposed those making the decisions would act without prejudice and be open to change. In hindsight, that was never going to happen; we're talking bureaucracy, after all.
So objective judgment became subjective instead; give someone discretion and you open the door to the full gamut of variations in approach, including opportunities for criminal gain.
This wasn't helped by the neoliberals re-purposing the act to put economic imperatives "top" of the other wellbeings. The degradation of our waterways is a standout example of the cost of that.
But it also failed to work as it properly should because councils were caught short. Having relied on "this is how you do it" regulations, suddenly they found themselves without the hard data to make decisions on a site-by-site basis.
They floundered, badly, and were hesitant to approve anything remotely challenging for fear of being shot down in court for lack of evidence. So a lot of good schemes got nowhere, while some bad ones progressed despite a law that seemed against them.
Progressive councils identified the need for better data early, and spent two decades or more gathering it, so now their processes are robust and well-backed by science.
Others, however, were either under-resourced or too fixed in their ways to do more than rely on case law, as it developed, to empower them; and that was never going to be enough.
No wonder things are such a divergent mess. So yes, it's time for reform.
What worries me is the path that reform will take. Reading between the lines of the terms of reference for the review panel it seems the Government is seriously considering splitting laws on landuse from those for building.
This may appear to have merit insofar as urban construction versus (say) dairying goes, but it would be a backward step, negating the concept of a holistic view of development.
Broadly, anything within a catchment can affect anything else in that catchment. So rules need to be overarching, to take this into account.
Bruce Bisset
But perhaps more to the point, it threatens to reintroduce a planning divide between town and country that could harm far more than heal.
Especially if, as signalled, central government moves to take back some planning roles from local government.
Whatever you think of our planning rules now, this reform demands close scrutiny and lively public input as it progresses, because it will shape our nation's development for generations.
We can't afford to think it right but get it wrong twice.
Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet. Views expressed are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's.
