Balance of national and local interests
Presentation
Balance of National & Local Interests
- Insufficient expression of the national interest under the RMA
- High transaction costs associated with national or large regional activities
- Benefits of some activities are national and diffuse compared with specific and localised costs
Feedback
Industry meeting, Wellington 28 June 2004
- What is the definition of national interest?
- Where will that be decided?
- What is the criteria for comparing national interest against environment effects?
- Who decides national or local?
- Why have National Environmental Standards, National Policy Statements and Codes of Practice not been used or recognised?
- Clarify referencing to national standards
- Balance Part 2 of the Act with benefits in analysis
- Certainty of process
- Greater guidance for councils required to ensure a consistent framework for network infrastructure rules and other developments with national benefits
- Methods could be:
- national environmental standards; or
- (voluntary) guidelines/draft rules/framework e.g. for poorly resourced councils
- Issues to consider when developing guidance:
- private property rights
- fiscal responsibility for national interests
- differences between local interests
- providing certainty
- local geological, environmental, other considerations
- Give formal recognition to issues of national importance such as infrastructure and essential services
NGO meeting, Wellington 29 June 2004
Discussion group one
- National interest counterproductive to certainty
- Process to determine national interest
- planning
- alternatives
- government needs to front up
- Adding matters to section 6 of the RMA would convert the Act into balancing act - remove certainty
- Opposition to "need" to determine national interest
- Government failed to deliver national environment interest
- Use call-in for projects that traverse multiple councils
- RMA not about balancing, but about environmental bottom lines - don't add socio-economic objectives
- Ministry for the Environment not delivering because decisions politically hard. Need for Environmental Protection Authority headed by board and not minister
- Court applications of national interest caused problems (ferry)
- National policy statements - concern at constraints on "fettering" local decision making
- Central guidance should set rules - set "how" things should be achieved
- Where does sustainability sit in the national interest?
- Very slow cumbersome process, lowest common denominator, 15 years for it to filter through
Discussion group two
- Today's process
- Token gesture consultation
- Poorest reflection of the RMA process
- Is this just pre-election issue or attempt to move voters? Hijack other parties?
- What is the problem?
- Dissatisfaction with today as a model of consultation
- What are the problems? What are you trying to solve?
- Sovereign risks = business/people reluctance to invest in NZ due to RMA uncertainty.
- What analysis has been done to determine if this is real/perception?
- in fact, lack of national standards make it relatively easy to develop in NZ?
- Perhaps not time but low cost investments because environmental standards in NZ are poor. Cost cutting at feasibility/engineering/research pre-development stage.
- Suspect that there will be a lot of commonality on improving process issues but need to know where the government is heading and why. If it is sovereign risk - first identify if it is real or perception, put this in context, speculative ventures are high risk by their nature
- Analyse timeframes - many resource consent applications are quick/streamlined. Which ones aren't why? - are there valid reasons?
- The Act itself does not need amending, it works - the purposes
and principles are valid. Look lower down the food chain:
- regional plans
- guidelines
- policy statements - coastal policy statement
- water management plans
- slowness on plans is council controlled/lack of interest/lack of capacity
- central government assistance. Funding/people to the regions, NOT decision-making going to Wellington
- greater Ministry for the Environment involvement
- research to determine adverse effects, air, water
- Environment Court is working for aquaculture
- greater chance but high risk option of best practice because voluntary non-government organisations are forced to lead the process.
- Need for directions back to councils/variations
- Need for plan correction process
Industry meeting, Auckland 30 June 2004
- National policy required
- process
- need for continual review
- cost benefit analysis/national interest
- Issues other than environmental need to be taken into account
- Cannot be seen as Economic Development Act
- How is national interest advocated
- (Department of Conservation currently sole advocate)
- reference to appropriate ministers
- Entity required for cross-boundary projects
- transmission lines
- pipe lines
- roads
- Mechanism for transmitting importance of government policy issues
- National guidance of what permitted in each district on standardised basis (particularly for infrastructure)
- Test of benefit/importance which triggers either direct referral or call-in with expert panel (single hearing) - resourced, fast timeframes
- Inclusion of economic importance in section 6
- Standardised consultation protocols
- Ministry recognition of standing
- Timeframes on approving requiring authorities
- Is Act keeping up to date with new forms of technology, eg. network utility powers?
- Whether infrastructure should also include resource inputs
Last updated: 6 May 2008
