Government presentation to meetings: Improving the RMA
Objectives of 2004 programme
- Improving the legislation
- Improving practice and processes
- Giving greater certainty and efficiency
- Maintaining public involvement and good environmental outcomes
Short timeframe for review
- Cabinet will consider series of papers over next few months
- Proposed amendments introduced later this year
- Decisions to be made on scope and urgency of further work
Principles to guide review
- Good environmental outcomes
- Certainty of process but not outcomes
- Certainty of cost
- Local decision making
- Public participation
- Central government leadership
A framework to structure the review
- Balance of national and local interests
- Design and process for local policy
- Consent decision making
- Allocation of natural resources
- Council capacity and best practice
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
Design & process for local policy
- Lack of national guidance
- Complexity and consistency of plans
- Regional policy statements
- Lack of plans for critical natural resources
- Costs and time taken to develop policy statements and plans
Allocation of natural resources
- Growing pressure on resources
- Plans not in place or lack key provisions
- Uncertainty for resource users
- Lack of clarity on council allocation mandate
- Inadequate guidance on planning
- Inadequate tools for allocation
- Restrictions on consent transfer
Consent decision making
- Uncertain information requirements and variable quality of applications
- Uncertainty about consultation requirements, costs and processes
- Dealing with consents for minor matters
- Inconsistent quality of decision making
- Abuse of process by submitters
Capacity and best practice
- Inconsistency between councils
- Lack of confidence in decision making
- Time delays, fees, compliance costs
- Excessive requests for information
- Plans take too long and are risk averse
- Limited assessment of outcomes achieved
Last updated: 6 May 2008
