Editorial: RMA rejig calls for sensitivity

Opinion

One way or another, the Resource Management Act is in for a big overhaul. The National Party's plans for a radical revamp have been announced on the eve of a parliamentary session that will see the Government undertake substantial surgery of its own. The aim of both parties is to ensure the act is not a roadblock to business and infrastructure projects. This they must achieve without laying the groundwork for an old-style ramming through of projects without heed to the local community.

To assess whether their policies achieve that balance, one must examine why the 1991 act has failed. Its central thrust was to shift responsibility for managing the environment from central to local government. But under-resourced councils have struggled to cope. In particular, planning documents have failed to fulfil the act's expectations. The answer to this shortcoming is either to reorganise local government so it has the capacity to do the job, or to return more power to central government.

Both the Government and National have chosen the latter, easier option. They would make more use of national policy and environmental standards, removing councils' room to be different and simplifying their task. This will fill the gap that has led to much of the inconsistency and inertness in the act's application.

On big infrastructure projects, also, the difference between the parties might not be all that substantial. The Government plans to strengthen its right to "call in" the act's decision process and have the matter heard by a single body. National says applicants could seek direct referral to the Environment Court for major or controversial consents that are likely to be appealed. An obvious contender is the Waikato power pylons project.

Thereafter, however, the parties' paths diverge. National takes a far sterner view on vexatious and frivolous objectors, strengthening the hand of the Environment Court to reject these, and dictating that objectors must show they will be affected by a resource consent. This is not unreasonable. Minority groups have exerted an undue sway.

But National would go still further, scrapping the act's legal aid objection fund. This smacks of an over-reaction, occasioned by the granting of $30,000 to Western Springs residents opposed to the noise created by the speedway. The party's previous, more appropriate, policy was to restrict legal aid to objectors personally affected by an application. Part of the consultation balance will be lost if people do not have the wherewithal to object.

National would also remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori cultural and spiritual values from the act. Again, this is a reaction to abuse of the act, this time the right of local iwi to be specially consulted. Too often, developers have been at the mercy of rival claimants to tangata whenua status, and too frequently consultation charges have been excessive. Labour's response is more equivocal. It would retain the treaty provision but says iwi have only the same rights of any other person at consent hearings. The contradiction is palpable.

Any changes to the act should produce certainty in the process and consistency in the outcome. But it should not promote certainty of outcome. There is a danger of that if community interests are driven too far into the background. Part of National's policy invites that, even while its package is commendably clear and concise. Finding the right balance will require more fine-tuning.