Govt RMA plan lacks safeguards

The proposed revised section 6 omits any reference to the "intrinsic value of ecosystems"

Last week, the Government announced it was putting on hold its plans for further reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

It could not secure the support of the Maori Party and United Future to pass the bill before Parliament is dissolved for the upcoming general election.

Instead, the Prime Minister said that National would campaign on the need for further reforms to the RMA, and then look to reintroduce the bill if re-elected to government, assuming the necessary support from any partners.

Given that most people vote for political parties on a range of issues, not just one of them, it is somewhat disingenuous to assume that a vote for any one party necessarily means support for all its policies, but such artfulness seems the hallmark of politicians.

What was the Government proposing and why was it unable to get the necessary support from all its coalition partners?

The stated intention of the proposed bill was to improve aspects of the RMA by making it easier to use, more predictable, less costly and duplicative, and with presumed better safeguards for its environmental, economic, social and cultural outcomes.

Twenty-two substantive changes were proposed, grouped into six themes: greater national consistency and guidance; fewer resource management plans; more efficient and effective consenting; better natural hazard management; more effective and meaningful iwi/Maori participation; and working with councils to improve practice.

Many of the proposed changes would be welcome, although the provisions for some applications to be processed on a non-notified basis; limits on the scope of participation in consent submissions and in appeals, and on the conditions that can be put on consents; and constraints on which appeals can be made to the Environment Court, cause some concern.

They conflict with the democratic principles of public participation and subsidiarity in governance.

The big issue, however, and the one on which the Government failed to get the support of the Maori Party and United Future, was on its proposed changes to the principles contained in sections 6 and 7 of the RMA.

These include combining these two sections, and introducing a new, more directive section 7, Methods.

The proposed revised section 6 omits any reference to the "ethics of stewardship", "amenity values", "quality of the environment", and the "intrinsic value of ecosystems", but extends the provision for efficient use and development of natural and physical resources by stressing "the benefits derived from their use and development".

Many people feel that this shifts the emphasis away from seeking a balance between resource use and environmental protection to one that gives primacy to economic development, without clear corresponding environmental safeguards.

There is no certainty that the changes, if applied, would maintain or improve environmental quality, and not erode the many non-monetary benefits we derive from our natural surroundings.

In essence, the purpose of the RMA, to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources (emphasis added), is being altered. Is that desirable?

How will you respond to the Prime Minister's challenge?

Peter Frost is an environmental scientist who has worked on issues of environment and development in Africa and Asia. He has reservations about the RMA but feels that its purpose and principles are sound.