You are here: Resource Management
Act 
Improving and implementing the RMA RMA reviews and amendments Improving the RMA Cabinet Paper: Improving the Resource Management Act 1991
Part H - Other matters and recommendations
Minor, technical and mechanical amendments to the RMA
185. There are a number of minor, technical and mechanical amendments necessary to fix errors in the statute or hiccups in procedures (some result from the 2003 Amendment Act) - see Attachment 2.
Consultation
186. Since the beginning of May, the Ministry for the Environment has led a whole of government process for the development of these proposals. A core group of senior officials from government departments has met weekly since the beginning of May to discuss the proposals: Ministry for the Environment, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, The Treasury, Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Te Puni Kokiri, Department of Conservation and Department of Internal Affairs. This group has also involved Local Government New Zealand. Chief Executives from these agencies have met 7 times to develop the proposals.
187. Other departments and agencies were involved in working groups (at their request) or consulted directly: Ministry of Health, Land Information New Zealand, Ministry of Justice (including the Environment Court), Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Ministry of Fisheries and Housing New Zealand Corporation.
188. The Ministry for the Environment has also met people on request and has held in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Economic Development meetings in Wellington and Auckland for business and environmental/community groups to discuss the proposal in late June (attended by 150 people). Officials were also involved in the Local Government New Zealand workshop attended by 120 local authority delegates held in late June.
189. Te Puni Kokiri organised input from a group of experienced Māori RMA practitioners, who provided practical advice and solutions in relation to Māori engagement in resource management processes.
190. I have also met three times with a reference group established to provide independent feedback. The group brought practical real world experience, and enabled me to connect areas of agreement and isolate areas of contention. The members of the group were Graham Pinnell (Waikato sheep and cattle farmer), Shane Jones (Chairman of Sealord Group Ltd), Kate Mitcalfe (environmental lawyer with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society), Basil Chamberlain (Chief Executive of the Taranaki Regional Council), and David Hill (Director of Hill Young Cooper Ltd consultancy).
191. Formal submissions have not been sought, but there have been opportunities for input. The Ministry for the Environment and I have received over 200 written comments directly or via a website (www.rma.govt.nz) established for the purposes of the review. Some excellent thoughts and suggestions have come through and a summary of the main points is available on the website.
Financial Implications
192. If implemented, the proposals outlined would have financial implications.
193. [Information from the paper has been withheld under s 9(2)(f)(iv) of the Official Information Act (1982).]
194. The Ministry for the Environment is working on a more detailed and costed report back on natural resource implementation and capacity building - due with Cabinet by 1 November 2004. Funding issues will be included for consideration as part of budget 2005/06.
Human Rights
195. The proposals contained in this Cabinet paper do not appear to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, or the Human Rights Act 1993. A final view as to whether the proposals will be consistent with these Acts will be possible once the legislation has been drafted. Officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry for the Environment will work together to ensure that the legislation is consistent with the Bill of Rights and Human Rights Acts.
Legislative implications
196. There will be legislative implications resulting from this work. They will be detailed in subsequent legislation cabinet papers. On that basis, it is proposed that the Resource Management Amendment Bill No3 receive priority 4 (to proceed to select committee) on the government's legislative programme for 2004.
Regulatory impact and compliance cost statements
197. Any increase or decrease in compliance costs will depend on how councils and the Environment Court exercise their new powers. It is therefore not possible to estimate the level of impact that the amendments will have. The only sources of compliance costs identified are use of professional advice and the time spent by businesses to understand the regulatory changes. Increased compliance costs will be mitigated by a user education programme in relation to amendments to the RMA.
198. Based on the information provided in the attached RIS/BCCS, the Regulatory Impact Analysis Unit considers that the disclosure of information is adequate, and the level of analysis is appropriate given the likely impacts of the proposal.
Publicity
199. There will be significant interest in the package of proposals. The Ministry for the Environment is preparing an information pack for media and other interested parties to support the Government's announcement of how we intend to improve the RMA. This will include a set of short, simple information sheets about the key proposals. Similar information will be provided through the Ministry's website.
200. I also plan to conduct a series of meetings in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin to outline the proposals beginning 20 September 2004 and to invite feedback on the proposals via the Ministry's RMA review website (www.rma.govt.nz). The outcome of these meetings and the feedback will inform the final package of reforms to the RMA.
201. It is intended that this cabinet paper and the relevant cabinet minute will be publicly available on the Ministry for the Environment's website.
Recommendations
I recommend that you:
Background
1. Note that on 10 May 2004 Cabinet agreed to the development of a straightforward and understandable package of improvements (both legislative and non-legislative) for the Resource Management Act 1991 that focus on quality of decisions and processes (more specifically increasing certainty and reducing delays, costs and abuse of processes), while not compromising good environmental outcomes or sacrificing public participation [Cab Min (04) 15/12];
2. Note that the following principles have guided the review of the Act:
2.1. Achieving good environmental outcomes - there should be a proper assessment of environmental effects so that adverse effects can be avoided or mitigated;
2.2. Certainty of process but not outcome - applicants should have reasonable certainty about how long it will take to obtain a final decision, but the outcome must be determined by a proper assessment of environmental effects;
2.3. Certainty of cost - applicants should have reasonable certainty about how much it will cost to obtain a consent;
2.4. Local decision-making - communities are well placed to make environmental decisions in their areas and should have an appropriate opportunity to plan and make decisions;
2.5. Public participation - those affected by applications are best placed to identify the adverse effects on them, and should have the opportunity to bring these before decision-makers and seek avoidance or mitigation of them; and
2.6. Central government leadership - central government should show leadership and provide guidance to those involved in resource management;
3. Note that the process for review of the RMA included:
3.1. Calling for ideas (over 200 submissions received) and sector meetings with business, local government and environmental groups;
3.2. Establishing a Ministerial reference group;
3.3. Establishing six working groups of officials to develop issues papers, and a core officials group and a chief executives group of core departments identifying proposals, all of which included representatives from Local Government New Zealand;
3.4. The following Ministers meeting to consider draft proposals: Associate Minister for the Environment, Minister of Finance, Minister for Economic Development, Minister of Transport, Minister of Energy, Minister of Local Government, Minister of Conservation, Minister for the Environment, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and Minister of Māori Affairs;
Improve expression of the national interest through national policy statements
4. Note that the likely candidates for the development of national policy statements are:
4.1. Various types of network infrastructure (eg. electricity transmission, roads, telecommunications);
4.2. Water management issues (eg. allocation or use, quality, waters of national importance subject to the outcome of the Water Programme of Action);
4.3. Other allocation or nationally important resource issues (eg. renewable energy, geothermal);
4.4. Current s6 matters (eg. landscape, biodiversity, historic heritage, public access, relationship of Māori with natural resources); and
4.5. Matters determined by topical issues under consideration (eg. urban design)
5. Invite the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Economic Development to report back to the Cabinet Policy Committee (POL) by 3 November 2004 on the proposed course of action for developing national policy statements on various types of network infrastructure;
6. Invite the Minister for the Environment to report back to POL by early December 2004 on the proposed course of action for developing national policy statements for other maters identified in paragraph 4;
7. Note that the timeframe for development of a national policy statement could be reduced by making a full board of inquiry optional.
8. Agree to make a full Board of Inquiry process for national policy statements optional; with the alternative process being one that involves:
8.1. a "duty to consult" similar to that currently specified in s44 for national environmental standards;
8.2. the national policy statement being treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989;
8.3. the possibility of a draft of the national policy statement being referred to the Regulations Review Committee for consideration;
9. Agree to allow a national policy statement to specify the provisions that a local authority shall include in regional policy statements and regional/district plans without the need for normal local authority notification and hearing processes (first schedule processes), but only where local discretion in implementation is not required or very limited;
Improve expression of the national interest through national environment standards
10. Note that the use of more national environmental standards can increase consistency across New Zealand for applicants undertaking activities in more than one district/region; reduce the time taken to develop plans (eg. reduce the contents of plans); and also potentially reduce the number of resource consent applications;
11. Agree in principle, subject to the report in paragraph 12, to a programme of developing more national environmental standards;
12. Invite the Minister for the Environment to report back to POL by early December 2004 with a programme for developing national environmental standards;
13. Agree to amend s43 of the Act to include subdivision (s11) in the matters that national environment standards can be prepared for;
14. Agree to allow national environmental standards to:
14.1. Set standards 'absolutely' throughout the country;
14.2. Where allowed for in the national environment standard, allow for district or regional variation to set a more stringent standard;
15. Agree to amend s32 of the Act (consideration of alternatives, benefits and costs), with an extra test requiring local authorities to take into account the necessity of being more stringent than a national environmental standard, where the standard allows;
Improve expression of the national interest through central government advocacy
16. Note that on 8 September 2004 POL noted the proposals in the earlier paper under POL (04) 234 (recommendations 16 and 17) about providing for a whole of government approach in respect of consideration of applications under the Act [POL Min (04) 21/15];
17. 17.1 agreed that any proposals would need to be consistent with the mandate held by the Department of Conservation and would need to distinguish between applications of local significance and those of national significance;
17.2 invited the Associate Minister for the Environment, in consultation with the Prime Minister, Minister for the Environment, Minister of Conservation and other Ministers as appropriate, to give consideration to how a whole of government approach might be implemented and to criteria for determining whether central government intervention would be required and provide further advice for POL by 3 November 2004;
Improve consent decision making at the local authority level
18. 18.1 Agree to clarify that local authorities in consent processing should be encouraging applicants to consult with all affected parties; and
18.2 Confirm that there is no specific requirement on local authorities (as consent authorities) to consult otherwise in the process of preparing officers' reports (s42A) or making decisions, because this consultation occurs during plan preparation;
19. Agree to reduce the number of further information requests resource consent applications by amending section 92 to:
19.1. Explicitly require consent authorities to give specific written reasons for the further information request;
19.2. Allow the applicant, upon receipt of a further information request, to require the consent authority to proceed with the application on the basis of information already provided; and
19.3. Allow local authorities to reject applications if they believe there is insufficient information to process the application;
20. Agree that submissions can be neutral in effect (ie. not just in support or opposition);
21. Agree that at the pre-hearing stage of a consent application consent authorities will have powers to:
21.1. Require attendance at pre-hearing meetings;
21.2. Sanction non-attendance at pre-hearing meetings;
21.3. Establish lists of issues that are agreed and outstanding, the evidence to be called, its order and a timetable for hearing; or
21.4. Use independent mediators to mediate conflicts before or during a hearing;
22. Agree that the role of a consent authority hearing is to inquire into and decide upon applications for consents and private plan changes and make recommendations on designations and heritage orders;
23. Agree that, from 12 months after the commencement of amendments, the chair person of the hearing body be required to be 'accredited' with an appropriate qualification approved by the Minister for the Environment to hear notified consents, designations and heritage orders and private plan changes;
24. Agree that, from 24 months after the commencement of amendments, the majority of the members of a hearings body (including the chair persons) be required to be 'accredited' with an appropriate qualification approved by the Minister for the Environment to hear notified consents, designations, heritage orders and private plan changes;
25. Invite the Minister for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister of Local Government, to report back to POL 12 months after the commencement of the requirement in paragraph 24 on the effectiveness of the hearings accreditation system, including whether all persons on any hearings body for notified consents, designations, heritage orders and private plan changes should be required to be 'accredited' with an appropriate qualification approved by the Minister for the Environment;
26. Direct the Ministry for the Environment to establish a credible 'accreditation' scheme for training and regular assessment of councillors and independent commissioners that will support the mandatory requirements of paragraphs 23 and 24;
27. Agree to explicitly empower hearings panels to use the following powers in a manner that corresponds with the scale and significance of the hearing:
27.1. Require the applicant to circulate written briefs of evidence including attachments, before hearings, to the consent authority;
27.2. Require that evidence and attachments to evidence of all submitters who intend to call experts be provided in advance of hearings to the consent authority;
27.3. Organise the order of hearings according to subject-matter of the submissions, or otherwise;
27.4. Direct that some issues be considered or reported on before others;
27.5. Limit the nature of the hearing, such as setting time limits on presentations by parties and limiting ability for parties to present submissions in full where matters are incongruous with the matters under dispute;
27.6. Make explicit that some or all evidence can be taken as read or limited to matters in conflict;
27.7. Require evidence to be recorded;
27.8. Seek evidence during the hearing; or
27.9. Strike out a submission (similar to the Environment Court's power under s279(4)) on the grounds that it is vexatious or frivolous, or that it discloses no reasonable or relevant case in respect of the proceedings, or that it would be an abuse of process to allow the submission to proceed further;
28. Agree to provide the ability to make regulations under section 360 of the Act that prescribe local authority use of the powers for hearings identified in paragraph 27 and for the Minister for the Environment to prepare such regulations prior to the commencement of amendments to the Act;
Improve consent decision making at the Environment Court
29. Agree to clarify that the role of the Environment Court is an appeal authority with powers to inquire into and decide upon applications for consents, designations, heritage orders and private plan changes;
30. Agree that the Environment Court shall have regard to the consent authority's decision and conduct a 'rehearing', rather than a hearing de novo. De novo could be adopted only if the Environment Court determined that:
30.1. Evidence relied upon at the consent authority hearing was unsafe;
30.2. Evidence relied upon was insufficiently tested by the panel at the consent authority hearing;
30.3. Principles of natural justice were not observed at the consent authority hearing; or
30.4. Important new information has become available;
31. Note that a 'rehearing' approach will require the Environment Court to:
31.1. Determine the legal rights and obligations of the parties as at the date of the rehearing;
31.2. Consider new circumstances or changes in the law;
31.3. Admit further evidence, though it does not hear all the witnesses again; and
31.4. Not hear the matter afresh but have specific regard to the consent authority's decision as a starting point;
32. Agree that the Environment Court can order the preparation of an independent expert report;
33. Agree that the Environment Court should be required to define the issues that are to be resolved at an early stage;
34. 34.1 Agree that, following an order in council as to the commencement, that a declaration by the Environment Court can be sought for whether an application for resource consent should be notified or not notified either before or after the notification decision;
34.2. Note that the commencement would occur when the Environment Court's workload was at a sustainable level, with the Court consistently meeting its deadlines;
35. Note that the Environment Court is proposing 'practice notes' on use of commissioners sitting alone and consistent application of alternative dispute resolution processes (mediation and arbitration);
Improve non-local (call-in) decision making
36. Agree that there is sound justification for government to intervene in resource management decisions, that would otherwise be taken locally, when one of the following circumstances exists:
36.1. There is insufficient capacity, preparedness and information at the local government level to make decisions;
36.2. The community of interest is larger than the local level or where will there be significant inter-jurisdictional externalities from the decision;
36.3. Where the costs of the project are being faced at the local level but the benefits are national;
36.4. There is some over-riding need to avoid inconsistency in the application of the Act that is unrelated to the need to recognise different environments or communities; or
36.5. The values at stake or the effects of the activity are the same everywhere in the country meaning that individual devolved decisions are an unnecessary cost;
37. Agree that applicants or local government can request the Minister of the Environment to undertake an assessment as to the government's involvement in the local decision making for resource consents, designations, heritage orders or private plan changes;
38. Agree that the outcome of the assessment undertaken by the Minister for the Environment would instigate a decision that:
38.1. The local (standard) process is appropriate;
38.2. The local (standard) process with assistance should be adopted; or
38.3. The decision-making process should be at a national level.
39. Agree that if a local (standard) process with assistance is adopted the government would be able to:
39.1. Provide a government funded independent project coordinator to provide extra capacity through the Ministry for the Environment;
39.2. Direct that applications be heard jointly where more than one local authority is involved in a project (such as may be the case with a network utility);
39.3. Appoint a person on the locally led hearing panel; or
39.4. Issue a government submission developed under a "whole-of-government" process as an input into the decision-making process alongside submissions and applications;
40. Note that the role of independent project coordinator is likely to involve working with the community, local authorities, and the applicant to:
40.1. Avoid, where possible, project errors such as underestimating the scale of environmental effects or levels of community interest;
40.2. Promote early and complete exchange of information (between the applicant, local authorities, community and iwi groups) and encourage awareness of all relevant issues, so that those issues do not arise at later stages;
40.3. Facilitate liaison between consent authorities and where necessary determine a lead consent authority (eg, to run a pre-hearing meeting);
40.4. Advise participants, local authorities, and applicants on the skills needed to assess the proposal and to assist in identifying and, if necessary, procuring those skills; or
40.5. Assist the applicant, local authorities, and participants with process issues including advice on issues associated with the hearings process (including the composition of the hearings panel;
41. Agree that the Minister for the Environment will use the call-in provisions of the Act (as amended by these decisions) should the assessment of an applicant or local government's request for government's involvement in decision making on the project require a national level approach;
42. Agree to the Minister for the Environment appointing, subject to consideration by the Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee, a standing body of commissioners from which members of a board of inquiry will be appointed to hear a called-in application.
43. Agree that in appointing members to a board of inquiry to hear a called-in application the Minister for the Environment must have members on the board of inquiry with knowledge, skill and experience in relation to the Resource Management Act, matters likely to come before the board, tikanga Māori and in the case of the chairperson of the Board, judicial processes;
44. Agree to make the decision of the board of inquiry following a call-in, final, with appeals only on points of law (to the High Court);
45. Agree that the board of inquiry will be required to issue an interim decision so as to allow parties to comment before a final decision is issued;
46. Agree to amend s140 to apply it to notices of requirement for designations and private plan changes as well as resource consents;
47. Agree that the board of inquiry will make decisions on notices of requirement for designations, rather than recommendations to the requiring authority;
48. Agree to amend the criteria for call-in within the Act to include cross-district issues as well as cross-regional issues (s140 (2)(d));
Improve local policy and plan making
49. Agree to provide a clear mandate for government to require individual local authorities to develop plans to address specific resource management issues (through the functions of the Minister for the Environment);
50. Agree that district and regional plans "give effect to" regional policy statements, as opposed to being "not inconsistent with" ;
51. Agree that regional councils in addressing the significant resource management issues of the region in regional policy statements may state policies about one or more of the following areas: promoting sustainable urban form; timely and effective provision of infrastructure and its integration with land use policies; and allocation of natural resources;
52. Agree to limit the contents of plans by requiring plans to only include policies and rules and that other matters can be included at the local authority's discretion or contained in 's32 documentation' (consideration of alternatives, benefits and costs);
53. Agree to streamline the regional policy statement and regional/district plan making process by amending the Act as follows:
53.1. Clarify that the consultation principles in the Local Government Act 2002 apply to the development of RMA policy statements and plans, to the extent that these principles are consistent with the requirements of clause 3 of the first schedule of the RMA;
53.2. Clarify that where consultation has occurred in the course of the preparation of other local authority planning documents on the same matter, with the people or groups required in clause 3 of the first schedule of the RMA then the consultation requirements of the RMA may be considered fulfilled;
53.3. Clarify that a local authority is only required to undertake 'reasonable endeavours' to consult with persons identified under clause 3 of the first schedule;
53.4. Allow submissions to be neutral (ie. not just in support or opposition);
53.5. Extend powers used for resource consents to convene pre-hearing meetings to the development of a policy statement or plan (ie. s99);
53.6. Limit further submissions to submissions of opposition and only from those persons directly affected by the original submission who are not already a party to the matter;
53.7. The role of a local authority hearing is to inquire into the proposed policy statement or plan (including changes or variations);
53.8. Adopt powers for more inquisitorial hearing approaches as identified for consent hearings (as outlined above in paragraph 27) that promote a more robust first hearing;
53.9. Define the role of the Environment Court as an appeal authority with powers to inquire into and decide upon policy statements and plans prepared under the Act (including powers under paragraphs 32 and 33);
53.10. Limit the Environment Court's jurisdiction over the merits of policy decisions and value judgements of local authorities by specifying on appeal that the Environment Court's power is limited to referring the matter back to the local authority for reconsideration, with directions as appropriate. Failure to comply with directions will see the Environment Court making appropriate steps necessary to achieve the desired outcome; and
53.11. Require the Environment Court to have regard to the local authority's decision and conduct a 'rehearing', rather than a hearing de novo. De novo could be adopted only if the Environment Court determined that in accordance with the matters in paragraph 30;
54. Direct the Ministry for the Environment, in consultation with other agencies as appropriate, to report back to POL by early December 2005 on how the RMA could be improved to provide:
54.1. Greater recognition of other government statements and strategies in resource management decision making; and
54.2. Linkages to long term council community plans under the Local Government Act 2002 and regional land transport strategies under the Land Transport Act 1998;
Improve certainty for iwi consultation and iwi resource planning
55. Note that there are practical problems with the administration of the iwi related provisions of the RMA and uncertainty about the consultation requirements;
56. Agree to amend s35 of the Act to require local authorities to keep a register of iwi authorities and their rohe for their regions/district, with contact details, and a catalogue of current iwi authority planning documents;
57. Direct Te Puni Kokiri to provide material to local authorities on rohe of iwi authorities;
58. Agree to explicitly allow for co-management options in the RMA;
59. Agree to provide a clear process for iwi authority consultation in the development of national policy statements and national environmental standards;
60. Agree to amend the first schedule of the Act to require local authorities to:
60.1. Establish a consultative procedure with iwi authorities (similar to the requirements under the Local Government Act);
60.2. Identify matters that have bearing on resource management issues (including s6(e)) and how the issues have been dealt with; and
60.3. Identify and take into account any iwi authority planning documents recognised by an iwi authority (as is already required by the Act);
61. Agree to clarify that in relation to preparation of resource consent applications (including designations and heritage orders) and decision making on such applications, that Māori will have the same status as any other person adversely affected by the activity;
62. Agree that, until such time that plans and policy statements address iwi resource management issues (in the manner outlined in paragraph 61), the current status of Māori as identified in the Act and in case law will remain unchanged;
63. Agree to clarify that the Crown as an applicant under the RMA has the same obligations as any other applicant when dealing with iwi authorities/Māori who are regarded as a person adversely affected by the activity (subject to particular statutory requirements);
64. Note that the above provisions seek to clarify that it is the consent authority's responsibility to notify affected parties including iwi authorities, and to report on any assessment of adverse effects;
65. 65.1 Note paragraph 18 that seeks to amend the Act to clarify that local authorities in consent processing should be encouraging applicants to consult with all affected parties; and
65.2 Confirm that there is no obligation on local authorities (as consent authorities) to consult in the process of assessing and deciding on resource consent applications;
Improve natural resource allocation
66. Agree to explicitly recognise natural resource allocation as a role and responsibility of regional councils;
67. Note that paragraph 49 that provides a clear mandate for government to require individual local authorities to develop plans to address specific resource management issues (through the functions of the Minister for the Environment) and that this would include directing a regional council to prepare a natural resource allocation plan;
68. Agree to require consent authorities, when considering applications to allocate resource following expiry of consents for the use of resources, to recognise existing investment as a factor to be considered;
69. Agree to allow regional plans to specify that discharge permits can be transferred in a similar manner to that currently used for water and coastal permits and that discharge and water permits can be transferred temporarily or in part within a catchment or airshed (subject to limitations in national environmental standards);
70. 70.1 Agree to establish a default rule (as per the aquaculture reform), except where a plan or policy statement provides otherwise, that where a consent for use and take of a resource is about to expire, the current consent holder shall have the opportunity to have an application for a new consent considered before a competing application, based on the following criteria (in addition to meeting the requirements of the Act):
70.1.1. Compliance with any plan
70.1.2 Compliance with consent conditions (including consideration of track record for enforcement action); and
70.1.3 Whether the applicant operates under current industry good practice; and
70.1.4 Consideration of national interest criteria.
70.2 Agree that if these criteria are met, other applications will not be considered. If the incumbent fails to meet the criteria, then the next application in the queue will be considered.
71. Invite the Minister of Energy and the Minister for the Environment to report back to POL by 30 June 2005 on work programmes to address geothermal energy allocation and air shed allocation, to complement the Water Programme of Action;
Improve practice and build capacity
72. Agree to amend the Act to provide the Minister for the Environment with abilities to:
72.1. Request information relating to the Minister's functions from a local authority without being charged for that information;
72.2. Direct a local authority to undertake a specific action relating to the local authority's functions under the RMA; and
72.3. Link the failure of a local authority to comply with directions of the Minister for the Environment (under (72.2)) with invoking the Minister's existing powers under s25 of the Act;
73. Invite the Associate Minister for the Environment to report back to POL by 3 November 2004 on ways to better coordinate the RMA roles of the Office of the Ombudsman, Office of the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, with work of the Minister and Ministry for the Environment on best practice, in line with current practice as follows:
73.1. Office of the Ombudsman: complaints about local authority practices;
73.2. Office of the Auditor General: review of local authority performance; and
73.3. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: environmental outcomes
74. Agree in principle, subject to the further report in paragraph 75, to a package of best practice and capacity building initiatives that includes:
74.1. Commissioner and councillor training to support mandatory accreditation of consent decision makers;
74.2. Providing the Ministry for the Environment with an enhanced ability to take a stronger leadership role in implementing and monitoring the RMA;
74.3. Targeted one-on-one assistance to local authorities in need of support;
74.4. National guidance through the delivery and sharing of good practice between resource management practitioners;
74.5. Resource management user awareness/education, targeted to particular sectors including business; and
74.6. Guidance on iwi engagement and iwi capacity building;
75. Direct officials from the Ministry for the Environment to report back to POL by 3 November 2004 on implementation, best practice and capacity for a natural resource implementation and capacity building;
Minor, technical and mechanical amendments
76. Agree to the minor, technical and mechanical amendments listed in Attachment 2 of this paper;
Financial implications
77. Note that the improvements to the RMA are estimated to cost:
[Information from the paper has been withheld under s 9(2)(f)(iv) of the Official Information Act (1982).]
78. Direct officials from the Ministry for the Environment to report back to POL by 3 November 2004 on estimates in paragraph 77 as part of 2004/05 budget bid for natural resource implementation and capacity building;
79. Agree that the funding issues referred to in paragraph 77 for 2005/06 and beyond be included for consideration as part of budget 2005/06.
Related Issues
80. Note that the Minister of Energy may recommend to POL that amendments be made to sections 24 (construction or maintenance of works on roads) and 31 (rights of entry in respect of level crossings) of the Electricity Act, to be implemented via the Resource Management Amendment Bill, once officials have consulted on proposals;
81. Direct officials to undertake further work on additions to network utility operators under section 166 of the RMA and report to POL by 31 October 2004;
Communications
82. Note that the Associate Minister for the Environment intends to discuss the proposed RMA improvements with key stakeholders and seek written feedback before consideration of the draft legislation by the Cabinet Legislation Committee, in a series of public meetings in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin beginning 20 September 2004;
83. Note that the Associate Minister for the Environment proposes to publicly release:
83.1. the Cabinet paper and minute that initiated the review of the Act [CAB (04) 203 and CAB Min (04) 15/12];
83.2. the paper under CAB (04) 444 (including the regulatory impact statement and business compliance cost statement) after the Cabinet minute is released;
Legislation
84. Note that the Resource Management Amendment Bill No 3 has priority 3 on the 2004 Legislative Programme;
85. Note that as consideration is given to the implementation of and legal drafting for the decisions set out above, some refining of the wording of the decisions may be required;
86. Invite the Minister for the Environment, following discussions noted in paragraph 82, to issue drafting instructions for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to give effect to the above decisions;
Hon David Benson-Pope
Associate Minister for the Environment
Last updated: 6 May 2008
