Wrong to tinker with the RMA

Julia Roberts is one of many celebrities leveraging their fame to deliver a message about the environment. PHOTO/FILE

The latest movement for the planet is coming out of Hollywood.

No, it's not the latest blockbuster leaning on an environmental theme like Avatar or Erin Brockovich. Instead, it's A-list celebrities speaking out for nature in a series of short online videos by Conservation International. Julia Roberts is Mother Nature, Harrison Ford is the ocean, Kevin Spacey is the rainforest, Edward Norton is the soil, Penelope Cruz is water and Robert Redford is the redwood with as yet-unnamed actors for the coral reef and flower to come.

It's slick and inspirational stuff, with strong messages around "Nature doesn't need people. People need nature." Check it out at http://natureisspeaking.org/.

Another set of celebrity endorsements this week featured actors Emma Thompson and Leonardo DiCaprio speaking out about climate change.

Closer to home we have Lucy Lawless and Tiki Tane.

Why do we need celebrity voices? What's happened that we apparently only listen to the beautiful and charismatic? Or has the human species always been this way?

When I think about my biggest concern for our environment in New Zealand, it is the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms being pushed by the National Government. Radio New Zealand had a great backgrounder on this last week.

While last term's proposal got put on ice due to a lack of support from National's partners, this election result means that while the Nats lost one MP thanks to the Greens regaining an MP, with Act's single vote, they have a majority on items like the RMA.

Prime Minister John Key has come out since the election saying he wants to "to build a bigger consensus with other parties" and we have new Minister for the Environment Nick Smith overseeing the changes. Can I be hopeful of a fresh approach?

Finance Minister Bill English unfortunately used some awkward words this week tying together local council planning policies and the now acknowledged growing inequality and poverty in New Zealand.

I can't believe he really thinks the RMA is the "biggest single factor" in this.

Yes, planning is a vital part of providing housing and designing solutions, but I can't see how it's even a significant factor in poverty - the low minimum wage has got to be a bigger part.

My concern is that the environmental focus of the RMA gets watered down with an economic "balance" added. Of course, this will drive two bites at the cherry for economics, reducing the single focus on environmental protection and sustainability in this one act.

So watch this space as the next round of consultation rolls out - I hope it's higher quality than last time. Even with my cynical side activated, I was surprised the last RMA discussion document neglected to include statistics on the processing of consents, i.e. 95 per cent are processed on time and only 1 per cent declined - not a lot more room for "improvement".

I am more than happy for tweaks to be made to the RMA to streamline simple processes with limited impacts but this can't be used as a vehicle to remove principles from the act. From a practical point of view, it will open up case law and potentially slow things down.

Do we need a celebrity voice for the RMA to get engagement?

The RMA was developed under a Labour Government (via Geoffrey Palmer) and implemented under a National Government (via Simon Upton).

It wasn't so long ago that we had a bi-partisan approach to fundamental planning legislation like the RMA. Can we have it again?

Nicola Young works for global consultancy AECOM, is a former Department of Conservation manager and a columnist for the Chronicle. She was educated at Wanganui Girls' College, has a science degree from Massey University and is the mum of two young boys.