The Prime Minister was quick to "rip up" the Government's intended reform of the Resource Management Act after the Northland byelection. Suspiciously quick. He may be oddly relieved to lose the numbers he would need in Parliament to force National's policy into law. It wants the act's guiding purposes to include economic development alongside its present list of environmental and heritage protections. It seems reasonable both should be on the RMA's scales but this is not the first time Mr Key has backed off the idea.
He spent much of the previous term trying behind the scenes to persuade partners Peter Dunne and the Maori Party to drop their opposition to the measure. Last May he publicly announced he had failed to get their support and he said he would take the issue to the election in September. But sometime between May and September the party decided not to make it an election issue and the subject was barely heard in the campaign.
When the election result gave National the numbers to push through laws with the support of Act alone, Mr Key did not claim it was a mandate for his RMA reform, he still hoped to gain wider support in Parliament for a reform bill. Now he has no choice. The loss of the Northland seat leaves him needing the votes of Mr Dunne or the two Maori Party MPs to pass any contentious legislation.
If he sounds happy enough to "rip up what we've got now, go back to the drawing board and have another go" on RMA reforms, the reason might also be that legislation in this area is proving to have limited value. The Government was able to write economically balanced legislation for offshore drilling and mining on the continental shelf but the Environmental Protection Agency, set up to issue permits, has set the environmental bar so high that it is hard to see any new project getting consent.
The EPA's decision-making panels are composed of environmental lawyers and planners who may be steeped in an RMA culture that would be hard for any government to change. The central principle seems to be that development should not be permitted unless it avoids or mitigates damage to the natural environment. The suggestion that economic benefits should be balanced against the harm is not welcomed. Balance is not easy to define in legislation, as former Environment Minister now Justice Minister Amy Adams has conceded. Balance is even harder to promote in public debate. Environmentalists can easily paint the issue in black and white, arguing the scales will always favour development. Despite the recent EPA decisions they were protesting on Auckland streets this weekend against offshore oil and gas exploration.
