Slides with some of the main concerns with proposed changes to the RMA.

1. Resource Management Reforms
Gisborne Public Workshop
21 March 2013

2. Workshop Structure
• RMA presentation (20min.)
• Discussion (40min.)
• Freshwater management presentation (10min.)
• Questions/Comments (20min.)

3. Context
• RM reform key aspect of Govt economic growth agenda
• Local Government reforms (purpose, powers, priorities)
• Improving Our Resource Management System Discussion
Paper (28 Feb 2013) & Freshwater Management System
Discussion Paper (9 March 2013) – submissions due 2
April
• previous discussion papers:
– Technical Advisory Group (2012)
– Building Competitive Cities
• recent RM Reform Bill (Feb 2013)
• streamlining & simplification reforms (2009)

4. Problem definition by govt
Unclear and inadequate problem definition:
– costs & delays of planning & consenting processes
– impact on economic growth & jobs
– lack of consistency/predictability
– overly complex planning framework
– over-emphasis on environmental protection rather
than other positive outcomes (economic)
– issues of national importance may not be local priority
– housing affordability & land supply problem (Auckland)

5. Positive Proposals
• Interest in efficiency and simplified systems

6. Key issues with proposals
• Undermines fundamental purpose of the Act
– reduces environmental protection considerations
– elevates private economic interests
• Erosion of local democracy
– shift to increased centralisation of power
– reduced role for the Environment Court
• Unclear match with unclear problems
• Lack of time to properly dialogue within
communities and with Govt

7. Changes to Part II (purposes & principles)
• Sections 6 & 7 (principles) amended
– two sections merged into non-hierarchical list of
principles (elevating economic and reducing
environmental protection)
– removal of: amenity values, intrinsic values of eco-
systems, finite characteristics of natural and physical
resources, ethic of stewardship.
– insertion of ‘specified’ into s6 (b) & (c)
– references to historic heritage & public access to
coastal & riparian areas weakened
– insertion of built environment
– Insertion of natural hazards

8. Changes to Part II (purposes & principles)
• Implications:
– overall weakening of environmental protections
through increasing economic considerations
– removing amenity values likely to impact on
provisions around privacy, lighting, quality
design, historic character, etc.
– reduce Council ability to decline applications on
grounds of significant environmental effects
– focus on built environment is on infrastructure not
design and liveability

9. Central Control
• ‘streamlining’ process for ‘urgent’ issues:
– reduced community involvement undermines
democratic process
– increased central government control of process
– councils should determine what is urgent
– Government already able to direct on truly urgent
issues
– unelected Crown appointed panel
• Government power to direct plan changes
• Minister directs change and amends plan without any public
involvement or local decision-making

10. Environment Court
• ‘Faster resolution of EC proceedings’
– Reducing the involvement of the Environment
Court in resource management by
• reducing appeal rights when councils prepare a joint
resource management
• reducing the scope of appeals
• the Environment Court currently provides independent
oversight of resource management decision making
and ensures high quality outcomes are achieved.
– Move away from voluntary nature of alternative
dispute resolution

11. Consenting Process
• Some activities to be stipulated nationally as non-
notified
• Limiting scope of consent conditions
• Limiting participation in submissions & appeals
– Limited to those directly related to reasons for notification
– Submitters restricted to directly affected parties
• Removal of de novo status of appeal hearings
• Crown body to hear some types of consents
• 10 days processing limit
– Applied to ‘straight forward’ non-notified consents

12. • more meaningful and effective Māori participation early
in the plan-making process.
• clarifying the role of iwi/Māori by requiring councils
who do not have an arrangement with local iwi to
establish one gives opportunity for iwi/Māori to directly
provide advice during the development of plans.
• requiring consultation with iwi on NES
• making it easier to use existing tools for participation
such as joint management agreements
• improving the awareness and accessibility of iwi
management plans.