Skip to main content.

Focus of the 2004 review programme

The Government decided that options to improve the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the way it operates in practice were to be examined in five broad categories. These focused on problems identified through the work and consultation carried out by the Ministry for the Environment and other government departments throughout 2003 and 2004.

The review focused on:

1. Achieving the right balance of national and local interests

Local authorities are increasingly being asked to consider projects that raise issues of national significance (e.g. transport and energy infrastructure) in a policy environment that provides little or no guidance on how competing national benefits and local costs should be weighed.

2. Improving the design and process for local policy formulation

When the RMA was passed it was intended that local plans would simplify decision making. However, the process for making plans is cumbersome After 12 years, some water short regions do not have water plans, some district plans have not been approved, and some plans are overly complex.

3. Improving the consent decision making process

The concerns about consent decision making include lack of consistency between councils; delays and costs; lack of clarity and certainty for applicants; abuse of the process for personal gain, trade competition, or other vexatious reasons; and lack of clarity and consistency about consultation requirements.

4. Allocation of natural resources (water, air or geothermal)

Better mechanisms are needed for deciding who can use resources such as water, air and geothermal, especially fresh water on the dry east coast and coastal water for aquaculture development.

5. Supporting measures for building capacity and promoting best practice and implementation

The RMA is the most devolved system of environmental management in the world. New Zealand has 86 councils deciding approximately 50,000 resource consents each year. While local authority practice has steadily improved, the performance of some councils could still be better. New Zealand has no equivalent of an ombudsman who could examine decisions under the RMA and few options for central government to address inadequate performance by a council.

Last updated: 6 May 2008