Skip to main content.

A statement of the net benefit of the proposal, including the total regulatory costs (administrative, compliance, and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits) of the proposal, and other feasible options

Expressing the national interest

It is an assumption of the net benefit analysis that the proposed amendments to the RMA will result in greater use of instruments to express the national interest (through national policy statements, national environmental standards and government submissions).

Government

More flexible instruments will improve central government’s ability to express the national interest in terms of resource management, including providing the flexibility to address different matters, such as subdivision of land. Central government will be able to express the national interest up front, rather than have it determined through the decisions of councils and the courts. Government will, therefore, have more control over expressing the national interest rather than leaving this exercise up to local decision makers or the courts. As a result, national interest should be applied more consistently by the various decision makers. This will particularly benefit specific matters such as the development of essential services.

There will be a cost for central government in using the instruments to express the national interest. The average cost per instrument is likely to be similar to, or less than, the status quo, because the instruments should be more flexible to develop or use. However, it is intended that there will be greater uptake of the instruments, and this will result in greater overall expenditure. Therefore, additional funding will be required. The estimated cost to prepare a national policy statement is $1.2 million, and approximately $200,000 to $400,000 to prepare a national environmental standard — depending on complexity. The estimated cost of preparing government submissions is discussed under ‘RMA approval process and decision making’ in relation to non-local decision making.

Local government

Increased use by central government of instruments to express the national interest will provide greater clarity for local government on these matters, and will therefore ease the burden of interpreting and applying the national interest.

There would be additional costs to local government if they were required to review their planning documents to give effect to new national policy statements, or to justify deviating from national environmental standards. Consent authorities would have to take account of any national instrument when making decisions. It is difficult to predict the potential cost to councils in advance of the instruments being developed, because the costs will depend on the number of instruments developed, how prescriptive they are, and their content.

Applicants (including business)

Applicants will benefit from having more clarity about the national interest. This is likely to be of greatest benefit to applicants for projects that are large-scale or involve multiple districts or regions. There will be greater certainty about the requirements covered by national environmental standards (although some local variation could still remain). Government submissions will provide applicants with certainty about central government’s position on applications for approvals.

Society

Better expression of the national interest will enable communities to meet society’s broader environmental goals; for example, on matters that relate to day-to-day living, such as transport, energy or the allocation of natural resources.

Some parts of society may oppose the establishment of ‘absolute’ national environmental standards, because this would prevent them from seeking stricter standards being imposed locally. However, absolute standards can be set so that they do not compromise environmental bottom lines, but do provide greater certainty in reducing potential costs and delays associated with approvals.

RMA approval process and decision making

In summary, proposed amendments to council-level decision making include:

  • requiring local authorities to encourage applicants to consult with affected parties
  • requiring local authorities to give reasons for requests for further information, and to allow applicants to proceed without responding to such requests
  • providing local authorities with additional powers to control both pre-hearing and hearing processes
  • requiring decision makers to be trained
  • clarifying the role of consent authority hearings.

In summary, proposed amendments to decision making at the Environment Court level include:

  • requiring the Court to have regard to council decisions and to use a focused hearing approach as the default
  • enabling the Court to conduct a more inquisitorial-type hearing
  • allowing appeals to the Environment Court on notification decisions.

It is an assumption of the net benefit analysis that the proposed amendments will result in the use of new non-local decision-making processes (ie, funding an independent project co ordinator, directing joint hearings of applications, appointing a person to the hearings panel, issuing a government submission, or modified Ministerial call-in or applications for approvals).

Central government

Central government has an interest in council decision making being of a good quality in terms of the implementation of the RMA, so there is a benefit in having more robust processes and more skilled decision makers at the council level.

The cost of accrediting local government decision makers includes developing a qualification and delivering a training programme. However, the programme will build on an existing voluntary scheme, merely extending it to include the new hearing processes. The estimated cost to central government is approximately $1 million per annum.

Tightening the focus of appeals heard by the Environment Court will benefit central government by reducing the average cost of each hearing, because hearings may be shorter. As a result, the Court’s current funding could be used more efficiently. However, there will be some additional costs (between approximately $100,000 and $300,000 per annum) to prepare new Environment Court practice notes, and to obtain independent expert reports as required on a case-by-case basis.

Non-local decision making will benefit central government through improved leadership on resource management matters (particularly when these relate to matters of national interest) or the quality of processes and decision making.

The cost of administering non-local decision making will depend on the options that are selected (including government submissions) to process applications in this way. The estimated total cost per annum is $1 million. Each option necessitates varying degrees of central government involvement and will therefore incur different levels of cost. For example, a project co-ordinator could cost approximately $10,000 to $80,000, depending on the application.

Currently, the only way to challenge decisions on whether or not to notify a resource consent is to seek a judicial review by the High Court. The judicial review procedure in the High Court is expensive and time-consuming for all the parties involved. The Environment Court is better placed as a specialist court to deal with challenges on notification. Dealing with these challenges could, however, put pressure on the Environment Court’s workload. Although delays at the Environment Court have reduced, the delays would need to reduce further to allow this function to be added to the Court. However, the impact is minimised by the fact that the change would only come into effect once the Environment Court’s backlog of cases had reduced.

Local government

Local government will have more clarity about their responsibilities relating to consultation and any requests for further information on applications for approvals. There may be a cost for some councils to adjust their practice. However, for many councils the proposed amendments reflect — or could be adapted into — current practice. Guidance on enhanced inquisitorial processes will be provided through regulation.

Accreditation of decision makers will help councils to make better-quality decisions. Hearings panels will be able to conduct more robust pre-hearing meetings and hearings as a result of greater skill levels and greater powers to control these processes. Councils will benefit in terms of their functions being carried out more effectively.

Local government will need to cover the cost of running more robust hearings processes. Accreditation is estimated to cost councils $1,500 per decision maker in course fees, plus any additional cost of travel or accommodation.

Most councils had indicated they would have undertaken councillor training on a voluntary basis. However, the mandatory course will cost more, particularly when the majority of a hearings panel must be accredited. Around 20 councils also indicated that they would have had difficulty meeting the costs of accrediting a small number of councillors under the voluntary scheme. Some central government assistance may be available to contribute to the course costs of such councils.

There will be an opportunity cost to councils from councillors being unable to carry out their normal duties while attending the training course. Councils that have a higher turnover of councillors following elections may face relatively higher training costs.

Any savings in cost or time that result from more focused hearings at the Environment Court will benefit local authorities when they are a party to an appeal.

For non-local decision-making processes, local government will be able to have direct input into which option or options should be used (such as the project co-ordinator, joint hearings or a government appointment to the hearings panel). If a local authority does not have sufficient capability to deal with an application, they can seek assistance from central government. This may help to lessen the disproportionate burden on some local authorities that can arise in certain circumstances (eg, when a major project is proposed that involves a council with few resources).

Local government may become more risk averse if decisions on whether to notify consents (including on a limited basis) can be appealed to the Environment Court. Appeals to the Environment Court will be less of a hurdle than appeals to the High Court, so there is the potential for more decisions on notification to be appealed. However, it is not known how many more appeals are likely to be pursued. There will be the additional cost for local government in being party to any additional appeals at the Environment Court.

Applicants (including business)

If an applicant considers that a request for further information is unreasonable, they will not need to comply with it. This could reduce the potential for delays during the processing of their application and the cost of gathering additional information. However, if the information is not provided, the applicant risks having their application declined. Applicants can choose to take this risk on that basis.

There may be some transfer of, or potential increases and decreases in, the costs to businesses as a result of more robust council-hearing processes and more focused Environment Court hearings. This is discussed further in the Business Compliance Cost Statement below.

At the level of both the consent authority and the Environment Court there is potential for any costs that arise from seeking additional evidence to be passed on to applicants. The level of cost will depend on how these bodies administer this power.

If a non-local decision-making process is being adopted, the applicant will be able to have input into which options are used to process their application. This may result in processes being better suited to the type of application, potentially reducing the time, cost and stress for applicants. There are also potential savings in time and costs for applications called in by the Minister, because decision-making processes will be of a high standard and appeals will be restricted to points of law.

Applicants for approvals of consents that are on the borderline of being notified may factor into their project planning the potential for appeals to the Environment Court on notification decisions. For notification decisions that are appealed there will be additional costs and delays from the appeals process. For applications that are notified on the basis of a local authority being more risk averse of appeals on notification decisions, there will be additional costs and delays of notifying the application.

Society

Some groups in society (eg, iwi and environmental groups) may consider that their ability to participate in the approvals process will be reduced as a result of consultation focusing on ‘affected parties’. However, the amendments will codify existing good practices within local government that encourage consultation, so it is unlikely that meaningful consultation will be reduced.

Submitters may be dissuaded from abusing the submissions and hearing process due to the new powers of consent authorities and the Environment Court to control these processes. There is a benefit to society in having more efficient and better-quality decision-making processes that impose fewer costs on ratepayers. More robust processes and councillor accreditation will also give the public confidence in local decision makers.

There will be a specific long-term benefit to iwi through the training of decision makers in iwi resource management issues.

Improvements at both the council and Environment Court levels will mean that important resource management issues can be resolved in a more timely and robust manner. The new options for non-local decision making will mean that significant proposals that impact on society can be processed with an appropriate level of skill, resourcing and representation.

There is likely to be a benefit to people appealing council decisions on whether to notify an application to the Environment Court, because judicial review at the High Court is likely to be seen as a greater hurdle. If councils become more risk averse and notify more applications, this would increase the ability for members of the public to participate in the process.

Local policy and plan making

In summary, proposed amendments to local policy and plan making include:

  • empowering the Minister to direct a council to prepare a plan
  • requiring plans to give effect to the regional policy statement
  • enabling regional authorities to include certain matters in regional policy statements
  • enabling local authorities to limit the content of plans
  • clarifying consultation requirements in relation to plan making
  • limiting the scope of further submissions
  • enabling councils to convene pre-hearing meetings into planning documents
  • giving local authorities more powers to conduct an inquisitorial hearing
  • making the Environment Court refer matters back to the council for their decision, but with guidance.

Central government

Requiring the Environment Court to refer matters back to council for decision would likely tighten the focus of appeals before the Court, because it would remove the ability for the Court’s decision to supplant that of the council. In the long term this will change practices and should enable the Court to hear appeals more rapidly and at a lower average cost. As a result, the Court’s current funding could be used more efficiently, particularly in combination with other changes to the Court’s powers.

There is a benefit to central government in strengthening the planning hierarchy and providing Ministerial powers to direct councils to develop plans — if required. These changes will likely reduce the need for central government to intervene in the planning process directly (eg, through special legislation).

Local government

Requiring the Environment Court to refer appeals on council policy matters back to the council for their decision will result in better-quality decisions at that level, but with council having more control over the final decision. This may prevent some appeals that lack merit from being made and avoid wasting the council’s resources. There is a benefit to local government in having more control over the policy they set. This is in keeping with their role as elected representatives.

There are potential savings for councils through avoiding duplicating consultation processes on both RMA and on other (non-RMA) planning documents. There is also a potential for reducing the time taken in developing planning documents, and related costs, by limiting the scope of further submissions, and by controlling the way in which hearings are conducted.

In some circumstances, a council will incur costs if the Minister for the Environment requires it to prepare a new plan for a specific resource management issue. Territorial authorities may also incur costs as a result of needing to amend their plans to ‘give effect’ to regional policy statements. The extent of these costs cannot be readily predicted because it depends on the extent of the changes required.

Society (including applicants and business)

Some people may consider that their ability to participate in developing planning documents will be reduced as a result of limiting the scope of further submissions by possible dovetailing of consultation with other planning developments, or by referring appeals back to the council to decide. However, the opportunity remains for the public to participate fully in developing planning documents. People can still make an initial submission on any part of an RMA planning document. The right also remains for a person to respond to a submission that would directly affect them if it was accepted. There is an overall benefit to communities in having a more efficient submission process that enables public participation. There is also a benefit to society in preventing people experiencing ‘consultation fatigue’ through involvement in developing various planning documents.

The benefits and costs to society of more robust and focused hearing processes are discussed above in relation to the ‘Approvals process and decision making’.

There is the potential for plans to be simplified so as to make them more accessible to the general public. This will enable the public to participate better in the planning process and provide greater certainty about planning requirements.

Iwi consultation and resource planning

In summary, proposed amendments to iwi consultation and resource planning include:

  • requiring local authorities to keep a register, with material supplied by Te Puni Kokiri, of iwi authority details
  • allowing for co management
  • clarifying obligations and requirements relating to iwi consultation on planning documents, consent processing, national instruments and applications for approvals.

Central and local government

There is a cost to central and local government of developing and maintaining a register of information on iwi authorities and their iwi planning documents, although some of this information is already on record. The estimated cost to central government is $1 million spread over two years. The costs for local government are not known, but will vary depending on the number of iwi authorities and any complications arising from information gaps.

Better information will help local government to fulfil the requirements of the RMA. In some cases there may be a cost to local government from improved use of iwi planning documents as a tool for informing policy development and consent processing (affected persons).

There may be new costs (for some councils) in developing a procedure to consult with iwi authorities on planning documents. However, this cost may have already been covered through developing a consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002.

Overall, the obligations of both central and local government in relation to iwi will be clarified in relation to consultation — on national instruments, plan making, consent processing, and in preparing applications for approvals.

Applicants

Practices relating to consultation with iwi will be clarified for applicants (ie, encouraging consultation with iwi authorities who are adversely affected by a proposal). In deciding to consult, applicants will have better access to information identifying which iwi authorities to consult. As a result, any delays associated with consultation processes in respect of iwi authorities should be minimised.

Society

Iwi will benefit from having clearer processes for being involved in local policy and plan making, and the development of national instruments. Better expression of iwi values in planning documents and the opportunity to enter co-management arrangements will benefit iwi. There will also be complementary programmes supporting best practice in iwi resource planning.

Some iwi members may consider they will have less ability to participate in the consenting process as a result of consultation focusing on affected parties. However, the transition to the new regime may address these concerns because planning documents should reflect iwi values. Iwi and hapu will likely oppose any attempt by central or local government to define the boundaries of their rohe.

There will be an indirect benefit to communities more generally from improving how iwi matters are addressed in plans and the planning process.

Natural resource allocation

In summary, proposed amendments to natural resource allocation include:

  • recognising the role of regional authorities for natural resource allocation
  • recognising existing investment for applications to renew consents
  • enabling applications to renew consents to be heard first
  • enabling regional plans to allow transfer of discharge permits.

Central government

Clarifying the role of local government in managing the allocation of natural resources will mean that central government is less likely to need to intervene on these matters. For example, resources for work programmes are not going to be tied up with preparing special legislation.

The government would establish a consistent approach for reconsenting the use of natural resources, rather than having a separate approach to reconsent the occupation of space in the coastal marine area (as developed under the aquaculture law reform). There will be a benefit to government in providing an incentive for users of natural resources to perform well (in order for consent holders to be reconsented down the track). Government will have the assurance that existing network infrastructure that relies on the use of natural resources will be provided for in the long term.

Local government

The amendments will provide regional authorities with additional tools for addressing natural resource allocation. Regional authorities will also have more clarity about their role in managing the allocation of natural resources. There may, however, be additional costs for some regional authorities in developing provisions for resource allocation that were not previously in place.

Local government will have a consistent approach for reconsenting the use of natural resources (including the allocation of space in the coastal marine area), which will assist with streamlining consent processing.

Applicants

There is a benefit to businesses and applicants being able to transfer discharge consents. This will provide more flexibility in moving consents from site to site, or to different activities.

Under the default rule, there will be greater incentive to maintain infrastructure as consents (to use natural resources) near the end of their life, because of the opportunity to have an application to renew the consent considered first.

Applicants seeking to renew existing resource consents for natural resources will have increased certainty about how their application will be considered. The amendments will provide greater investment certainty for activities involving the development of physical works or infrastructure. New entrant applicants may consider that it will be more difficult to obtain consents, although the proposal does not prevent regional authorities from altering the default rule, and does not prevent consents from being transferred.

Society

Better uptake by regional authorities of the responsibility to allocate natural resources will benefit communities generally. In particular, the management of natural resources is likely to be more effective, in terms of both environmental protection and the development of resources. Some communities will have the opportunity to participate in developing new planning provisions for the allocation of natural resources (including for the purpose of recreational uses) in their region.

There is greater certainty to society in having consistent processes for managing natural resources, including reconsenting the use of resources. Consistent processes will make it easier for the public to participate in the consent process.

Best practice and implementation

In summary, proposed amendments to assist best practice and implementation of the RMA include providing the Minister for the Environment with the ability to request information from local authorities and to direct local authorities to undertake a specific action.

Central government

The proposed changes will enable central government to have direct involvement in improving the operation of the RMA. This role will be carried out within existing baseline funding.

Local government

Reviewing practice under the RMA will also result in guidance being given to local government to improve their processes. However, there may be costs involved in co-operating with central government (eg, staff time to provide information to the Minister, or to undertake any specific action required).

Applicants

There will be improved processes for following up any applicants’ complaints on RMA practice, with the potential outcome of improvements being made.

Society

Improvements in council performance will lead to more effective and efficient processes under the RMA.

[ Previous | Next ]

Last updated: 6 May 2008