Editorial: Dashed RMA reforms show NZ's priority

Environment Minister Nick Smith. Photo / Getty Images

For better or worse, National's failure to raise importance of economic considerations clearly underscores the public's bottom line

This Government's longest and most ambitious legislative battle ended this week in defeat. National came to power determined to reform the Resource Management Act in a way that would give the economy equal consideration with the environment in deciding resource consents.

It proposed to add "economic development" to the act's stated purposes, along with existing ecological and heritage protections.

Throughout their first six years in government, National and the Act Party were just one vote short of being able to pass an amendment to that effect. Their governing partners, the Maori Party and United Future's Peter Dunne, were implacably opposed to such a basic change, particularly Mr Dunne who, as a Labour MP in the 1980s, worked closely with Sir Geoffrey Palmer when the RMA was conceived.

Sir Geoffrey also declared his opposition to National's proposed amendment, as did environmental groups. They believed that if environmental values had to compete with economic considerations on a level legislative playing field, the economy would prevail.

The Government kept the debate low-key while National negotiated with its partners but to no avail. Early last year, Prime Minister John Key announced they had failed to agree and National would take the issue to the election.

But when it came to the campaign, the issue was hardly raised. The election gave National enough seats to reform the RMA without the votes of the Maori Party or Mr Dunne but the Prime Minister said he would not do so without wider support. A few months later the Northland byelection ended any prospect that the RMA would be drastically reformed, though it had not been an issue in the byelection either.

The saga ended on Thursday when Environment Minister Nick Smith introduced a bill that will make very little difference to the operation of the act. Dr Smith says it will permit minor house alterations, such as decks or a carport, to be done without consent, that it will force councils to give priority to houses, and require iwi to be consulted at an earlier stage of planning applications. It has the Maori Party's support, at least tentatively.

But the bill's real significance is that it represents a landmark victory for the environment over the economy. It seems to suit neither the Government nor the Opposition to say this too loudly, the Government because it is a defeat, the Opposition perhaps because they are not confident the public would applaud it in those terms.

Yet it must be the public's view that the environment is the "bottom line" consideration. If it were otherwise, National would have put RMA reform in front of the electorate last year. Its polling probably told the party it would not be wise.

New Zealand's fundamental development principle has now been decided for the foreseeable future. It means that economic projects will generally not get consent if they pose any threat to the overarching environmental values set out in the act.

There is no doubt this will potentially curtail commercial activities, particularly on or near the coastline. Whether it also limits the nation's wealth will depend on the value we can derive from the protected environment. For richer or poorer, the die has been cast. Many will say an untouched environment is worth more than any amount of money. That in effect is the nation's decision and now we must live with it.