Summary of feedback received on the proposed changes to the RMA
The Associate Minister David Benson-Pope announced proposed changes to improving the RMA on 15 September 2004. Feedback was invited on the proposed package up to 4 October 2004.
66 responses to the proposals were received at the Ministry. Of that number more than 20 were from business, close to 15 from local government, and the rest from individuals, environmental/community groups, RMA practitioners, Māori and others.
What the feedback said
Support for the package to improve the RMA
Feedback supporting the package (or parts of the package) was made by a range of groups including business, local government, RMA practitioners, non governmental organisations (NGOs). There was particular support for:
- providing national policy statements and national environmental standards,
- training and accrediting council-level decision makers,
- providing government support through 'non-local decision making' and government submissions,
- improving practice and building capacity,
- clarifying iwi consultation requirements.
Businesses indicated support for modifying how applications from existing consent holders for the use of natural resources are considered.
Many local authorities expressed support for proposed changes to council hearings.
Concerns about parts of the package to improve the RMA
A number of groups raised concerns about parts of the package. Some were unsure about how the policy will work in practice. Some concerns are outlined below and are attributed to the relevant group (where commonly noted):
Expressing national interest through national policy statements
NGOs opposed removing the board of inquiry from developing national policy statements. This is because they felt that there would be an impact on public participation and the transparency of decision making.
Note, the package provides that a board of inquiry will still be an option that could be used in developing national policy statements.
Expressing national interest through national environmental standards
Business opposed the ability of local authorities to impose standards stricter than a national environmental standard.
Note, the package also provides for 'absolute' national environmental standards that do not allow for stricter local standards.
Improving consent decision making at the local authority level
There was concern across all groups about proposed changes to council hearings and how this will work in practice. In particular, there was concern that there could be potential for uncertainty in the process, delays, and added cost and formality.
Improving consent decision making at the Environment Court
A range of groups expressed concern that there could be increased litigation about decisions to run a de novo hearing, and possible appeals on such decisions.
A range of groups were concerned about the potential cost, delay and purpose of independent reports requested by the Environment Court.
Improving local policy and plan making
Territorial authorities raised concerns about relationships with regional councils regarding the development of regional policies on infrastructure and urban form. Some businesses opposed including infrastructure in regional policy statements.
Local government was concerned that limiting further submissions (on planning documents) may add delays if this caused original submissions to be more in-depth. NGOs were concerned about how councils would identify an 'affected person' in receiving a further submission.
Business and some resource managers were concerned about removing objectives from planning documents. This was because they consider that objectives are important for assessing non-complying activities and monitoring the effectiveness of plans.
Business and NGOs were concerned that appeals on decisions on planning documents may take longer as a result of the Environment Court being able to refer matters back to the council.
Iwi consultation and iwi resource planning
A range of groups were uncertain about how the provisions would be implemented, and the timeframe for implementing them.
Allocating natural resources
Business opposed the criterion relating to 'operating under current industry good practice' for considering whether to process an existing consent holder's application ahead of that of a competitor. In particular, they considered that the criterion for 'industry good practice':
- may have nothing to do with minimising adverse effects on the environment,
- would set a test that new applicants would not need to meet, and
- would, in effect, make voluntary practices mandatory, also
- local government may not be the best judge of industry good practice, and
- compliance with existing consents is a better indicator of performance.
Last updated: 6 May 2008
