RMAproposal hamstrings public
A significant milestone on New Zealand’s road towards sustainability will be reached on October 1, when the Resource Management Act turns 25. But not everyone will be celebrating.
The act has plenty of critics and moves are afoot to streamline it further. Few will argue against the need for targeted tinkering, but some of the proposals would swing the consultation pendulum too far away from the public domain and into the hands of the Environment Minister.
It is hard to believe this colossal piece of legislation has been driving attempts to balance the sustainable management of our natural resources against necessary economic activities and development for nearly a quarter of century. When introduced, it was a bold and innovative piece of work, one that shifted the onus for granting consent for a particular project from what the activity was to its effects. But the act, already much modified over the years, has been frustrating those most heavily involved with the local government sector, especially those who want to build houses urgently to meet growing demand in cities such as Auckland.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, has taken a strong stand against some of the proposed changes. Wright agrees the act is not perfect but says it has become something of a ‘‘whipping boy’’ for disgruntlement. It is often other legislation, including the Public Works Act and the Building Act, that are the true causes of frustration, she believes.
Wright has taken aim at what she sees as quite extreme suggestions to reduce public participation in the RMA process. She considers the proposals give the Environment Minister extra powers which are too broad.
New criteria on resource consent notification gives particular concern. Earlier changes to the act have already made the requirement to notify consent applications more restrictive, in turn reducing the ability of the public to make submissions.
At present, a council can either publicly notify a consent, only notify it to a small number of individuals or groups, or not notify at all. There is also a caveat that a consent must be publicly notified if adverse environmental effects are ‘‘likely to be more than minor’’.
A worrying development is the proposal for the Environment Minister to be able to decree that some activities will not be publicly notified or even notified at all. Even more alarming is that the minister could exclude ‘‘particular persons or classes of persons’’ from making submissions.
The Department of Conservation has already warned Conservation Minister Maggie Barry that might mean neither of them would be allowed to submit on issues within their statutory responsibility, such as protecting the country’s biodiversity – clearly a ludicrous situation.
Another proposal is to change the ‘‘more than minor’’ caveat for public notification. That would mean the public would not have an automatic right to make submissions on an activity that could actually have major impacts on the environment. It almost seems as if, emboldened by what it sees as the success of its unpopular meddling with Environment Canterbury, the Government wants to roll out that level of control far and wide.
Wright says these clauses ‘‘go too far’’ in shutting down public involvement in important environmental issues. We agree. The minister should not be given such potent, antidemocratic, additional powers.