Editorial: Resource bill better for all the wrangling

Opinion

Any change to the resource management law was bound to emphasise the need for quick and binding decisions on major infrastructure projects and the multitude of environmental permits applied for by New Zealanders.

Obstructions need to be cleared, not least those that mean virtually any person or group can become involved in any decision. The Government underlined its intention to achieve this in the very title of its legislation, the Resource Management Act (Streamlining and Simplifying) Amendment Bill. In the main, this achieved a better balance and greater consistency than the original law.

It was, nevertheless, always bound to be controversial. So, too, was the Government's aim of fast-tracking it into law on October 1 to untangle what the Prime Minister described as "the red tape suffocating everyone from homeowners to businesses". The bill was the subject of 840 submissions to Parliament's local government and environmental select committee. Many argued that the streamlining would reduce opportunities for community participation in decision-making, and that the strengths of the principal act had been diluted. Many doubtless also believed their complaints would be ignored in all the haste. The select committee would be a rubber-stamp.

That, commendably, has not happened. Many changes, some of them significant, have been made. The Green Party, somewhat extravagantly, said this represented a reality check for the Government. Alternatively, it showed a willingness to accept that such sweeping change must not mean the interests of communities and environmental protection groups were overpowered. The bill has, effectively, been fine-tuned to achieve a better balance without seriously undermining its fundamental aims or workability.

Perhaps most notably, the select committee has removed clauses that would have restricted appeals to the Environment Court over district and regional planning rules to legal issues. The Government's intention was to reduce the time spent on developing plans and to reinforce the role of local authorities as the primary policy-making bodies. But both big business and environmental groups said they feared being shut out of important planning decisions.

The select committee was told this would result in such groups fighting tooth and nail against new planning rules at council hearings, creating major delays. More fundamentally, the proposal erred in removing the right to appeal on merit. The essential unfairness of this brought about its undoing. The select committee was, however, less convincing in providing an alternative to speed up the planning process. It opted for national standards to provide direction, even though this contradicts the ambition to enhance local authorities as policy-making bodies and, indeed, the dominant thrust of the original act.

Local bodies' wish for the non-complying category of development to remain has also been heeded. It allows councils to place activities they do not want to prohibit outright under strict controls. The select committee was told removal of the category would mean an overhaul of district and regional plans. Equally positive is a widening of the range of projects able to be called in by the minister to include the likes of public health. Welcome, too, are further steps to reduce unreasonable and anti-competitive submissions.

Controversial aspects remain, including a prohibition on blanket tree protection orders, although this will now be phased in. Opponents of the bill have been only partly placated. But the select committee has shown a pleasing pragmatism. Better legislation has emerged from its willingness to listen.