Skip to main content.

Summary of written feedback about improving the RMA

We received around 210 written responses, with approximately:

  • 27% from business/industry
  • 19.5% from individuals
  • 15.5% from environmental and community groups
  • 16.5% from practitioners
  • 11% from local government
  • 7.5% from other organisations and
  • 3% from iwi/Māori.

Improving the balance of national and local interests

A number of you considered sufficient emphasis was not given to national interests in the Act, and that it was not working for unusual, large, or complex projects.

You said that a range of tools needed to be provided and the “one size fits all” approach should be avoided. Both national and international perspectives needed to be considered more effectively, in the planning process and in individual consent applications.

You want more certainty around when central government will get involved. The Act should be clear when central government input is required, and a number of responses suggested that there should be a “whole of government” approach taken to nationally significant projects — either because of the magnitude or spatial distribution of the issues involved. The legislation should have a definition of “national interest”, “nationally significant” or large projects, or a list of criteria against which applications would be assessed. Some responses strongly opposed amending the Act to include a reference to “national [development] interest”.

You said the current “call-in” process was inadequate with suggestions for changes. You suggested that central government should guide the resource consent process for nationally significant projects, with a “National Consenting Body”, or independent board of commissioners hearing applications for projects of national significance in the first instance. The criteria for using the national consenting process would be set out in the Act. You also suggested that the Ministry for the Environment should submit on all resource consent applications for nationally significant resources, and that the Ministry for Economic Development should administer the Act. You want a revised call-in process to include the call-in of notices of requirements for designations.

You considered national policy guidance on certain matters needed to be strengthened possibly by increasing the number of national environmental standards and national policy statements. In particular matters concerning infrastructure, energy, water supply and sewage treatment were identified. You suggested that national strategies for managing resources should be developed for example, a national energy strategy, and that district plans for national infrastructure should be aligned.

Possible national policy or environmental statements on biodiversity, public access, heritage, energy, infrastructure, built environment, natural landscapes, water quality and quantity and air quality were suggested.

You suggested a mechanism be developed whereby central government develop and promulgate policy positions at Cabinet level to which local government are required to give effect to at any stage in developing a proposed plan or when implementing an operative plan.

Energy and infrastructure were stated as being matters of national significance and applications should be referred directly to the Environment Court.

The importance of regional benefits was noted along with the need to include local communities in decision making. Some of you considered decisions on nationally significant projects were best made at the local level, and that the needs of local communities should be given fair and reasonable consideration.

You consider the role of the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation should be examined, along with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. The Department of Conservation is the only central government department extensively funded to represent the national interest in local planning and consent processes. It was commented that the Department is constrained by its statutory duty to advocate conservation, and that it gave an unbalanced perspective that this was the only relevant aspect of the national interest.

Some of you said that the Act was about the environment and should not include social or other considerations. However there were contrary views that greater recognition should be given in the Act to economic, social, landscape, urban design and the built environment, and public health and safety matters.

Some of you considered the national interest was already adequately provided for in the Act.

Improving consent decision making at the council level

Generally you indicated that the wording in the Act was not an issue, but the way councils were implementing the Act could be improved. Council decision making, both within and between councils, was variable, inconsistent and sometimes of poor quality.

You made the following suggestions to improve consent decision making:

  • mandatory training on the Act for decision makers such as commissioners and councillors — moving to a situation where the hearing committee structure requires a majority of members to be accredited by a national decision-maker accreditation scheme
  • a dedicated national panel of independent commissioners of appropriate standing, qualifications and experience to make decisions at the local level. These appointments could be made with central and local government input
  • independent Environment Commissioners could be requested to hear consents
  • clearer guidance, rules and definitions (particularly of “effects” and “environment”) in Part II of the Act, as well as requiring plans to be consistent with national environmental standards and national policy;
  • a single pool of experts to assess risk and set standards on particular issues
  • more resourcing to provide district and regional databases
  • establishing a RMA quality control unit;
  • the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to set best practice standards
  • substituting industry standards for environmental standards
  • a better understanding by councils of investment costs and recognising existing investment when re-consenting infrastructure
  • national regulations setting out standard hearing procedures
  • set timeframes for providing further information and ability for council to reject application if timeframe not met
  • developing best practice guidelines and solutions
  • adopting an inquisitorial style council process.

A number of you raised the issue of having multiple consent authorities involved in decision making on a particular project. You suggested that there should be a mandatory requirement for consent authorities to hold joint hearings.

Consultation was also an issue for you. Some of you saw the requirements under the Act as overbearing, one-sided and prone to abuse — you want them less onerous and less open to abuse. The requirements should be clarified so it is clear who needs to be consulted, about what.

You said that it was important not to increase costs and formality at council hearings, and that introducing costs being awarded at council level would be damaging. However others suggested that objectors should contribute to the costs of hearings, and that councils should be able to award costs under a “scale of costs approach”. Some responses strongly opposed any attempt to limit participation in the resource consent process.

Some of you considered council performance should be monitored by a central government agency, with suggestions that councils be penalised, amalgamated or replaced if they failed to perform or implement the Act. An affordable system for complaints was also suggested.

You suggested an Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and an Environmental Ombudsman office be established. You noted that most developing countries have centralised systems for environmental regulation such as an EPA and that this type of body would:

  • set better quality standards — as a single pool of expertise would assess risk and set standards
  • not duplicate provisions — technically complex standards would not need to be litigated and re-litigated by applicants for resource consents and submitters on plans
  • reduce costs - as submitters, applicants and councils would not need to hire independent consulting advice
  • provide consistency — the rules would have national effect.

Improving consent decision making at the Environment Court

You suggested improvements to Environment Court decision making. You said that:

  • delays at the Environment Court were an issue
  • appellants should be penalised if not ready for hearing at the required time
  • unnecessary public involvement should be reduced
  • standing should be reduced to those affected by the application greater than the public at large — there were also responses against introducing tests for standing
  • costs should be awarded more frequently as a deterrent to appeals of little merit
  • resource consent applications should be able to be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision (although there were also submissions against this idea)
  • legal funding should be available
  • de novo hearings took too much time and money and that a “focused hearing approach” be adopted
  • dissuading (through legislative and/or other means) the Environment Court from determining matters of a policy nature and referring more policy matters back to local authorities to determine
  • the scope of the Environment Court should not be reduced
  • the Environment Court should not be limited to considering points of law
  • a decision by more than one independent commissioner should be upheld by the Environment Court
  • the mediation service of the Environment Court was under utilised and under resourced — there should be greater use of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
  • introducing an arbitration process
  • reinstating security for costs would be damaging (although there were also responses stating that it should be reinstated to assist applicants against vexatious litigants).

Improving local policy and plan making

Some of you considered that policy and plan documents were not readily accessible and that improvements were needed to reduce their bulk and complexity.

A number of you considered there should be better guidance for councils, and better use of national policy statements. Allocating responsibility for defining technical standards to a national body such as an Environmental Protection Agency was suggested. You considered regional policy statements needed to be more prescriptive, and in particular to include regional land transport strategies. Developing a model regional and district plan was another suggestion.

The arbitrary differences between the more than 70 district plans in dealing with infrastructure were raised. You suggested plans should be aligned possibly by using national environmental standards for example a NES could be prepared to specify a nationally consistent approach to low impact utility infrastructure, permitted throughout district, subject to specified performance standards which provide for a window of acceptable effects.

You said that it was important to balance individual costs and district benefits, as well as strategic planning. You supported long term council community plans required under the Local Government Act as being a step in the right direction and wanted links made between this Act, the RMA and the Building Act. You also suggested that councils should have sustainable development management systems.

A number of you considered there was a need to recognise community values or aspirations, and that often they were not sufficient considered by the councils. You suggested that local reference groups be established to improve this situation. However there were also comments that the local community views carry no greater weight in outcomes than any submitter no matter how remote or unqualified that person may be. You said that councils or the wider community should carry some of the costs in protecting matters of national importance (under section 6) where these had implications for how private landowners could use their land.

Some of you considered the process for creating and implementing changes to plans was cumbersome and expensive. Poor draft plans then led to a cumbersome submissions process. You suggested the process could be streamlined by developing a national template.

You stated it was important plans were reviewed, but that the status of proposed plans and variations was made clear in the Act. You also suggested a precautionary approach be taken when knowledge was limited. Although there were responses which stated that over use of the precautionary principle and plans that are not effects based was stifling the introduction of new technology and innovation.

You suggested some specific measures to improve district and regional plans, and the consenting process:

  • reducing the need to apply for consents and the number of consents needed for a particular project
  • reducing the categories of consents
  • removing the non-complying activity status
  • introducing more robust discretionary activity assessment criteria
  • examining the non complying test
  • defining time limits for consulting including responses to requests for views
  • considering wider powers for non-notified consents
  • addressing the cumulative effects of ongoing development
  • requiring conservation plans for heritage buildings
  • making it mandatory for plans to include controls on geothermal water
  • introducing catchment management planning
  • making zoning more stringent
  • developing a model for dealing with cumulative effects
  • developing mechanisms to handle cross-boundary applications
  • providing common expiry dates for consents for the same resource
  • providing that only affected parties are able to lodge submissions.

Improve certainty for iwi consultation and iwi resource planning

Councils need to engage with iwi and hapu but you consider the practice by some applicants, iwi, and councils could be better and that improving practice is essential to achieving greater efficiency in the future. You said the Act lacked clarity, encouraged poor practice and had raised expectations unreasonably (particularly amongst Māori). The Act needed amending in conjunction with capacity building initiatives.

You suggested that:

  • the right of iwi to be consulted by councils on policies and plans be confirmed
  • mandated iwi authorities, statutory acknowledgements and ancestral connection orders (via the Māori Land Court) should be listed in a schedule to the Act
  • the Act should include a mandated consultation process specifically for iwi recognised, or who have interest which are listed in schedules to the Act
  • it needed to be confirmed that iwi should be consulted on, and notified of, resource consent applications only where they are affected parties
  • it is confirmed there is no legal obligation for applicants to consult with affected parties (including iwi)
  • it is confirmed the matters that applicants should consult and report on are those matters set out in sections 6(e) (the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga) and 7(a) (Kaitiakitanga).

You stated that an iwi authority means a traditional tribe or tribal authority, and that a tangata whenua council was made up of tribal authority delegates. You also said that devolution was the preferred option for traditional tribes.

Some responses considered training should be available for councils on cultural awareness, and tangata whenua should be adequately funded to provide effective consultation. Co-management was suggested as offering certainty to tangata whenua, and Māori participation should take place on marae or similar appealing environment.

You said that councils should be required to specify consultation requirements and identify local Māori with tangata whenua status in particular areas, and identify sites of cultural and spiritual significance on a register that is available to landowners or applicants for LIM reports.

Improving resource allocation

You highlighted the importance of resource allocation in achieving environmental outcomes. The need to move beyond the “first in first served” basis of allocating resources was noted.

You suggested regional councils develop allocation plans as part of their regional plans and that market mechanisms be used for allocating resources. Developing tradeable permits was raised with water takes being specifically mentioned. You consider this will require central government involvement and a national model as a number of councils are now struggling with approaches to tradeability on taking water, geothermal energy development and nitrate discharges.

You also suggested that resource allocation plans be subjected to central government oversight and approval. The initial allocation decision should protect the rights of existing resource users, including a right of renewal, subject to reconsidering environmental conditions at appropriate intervals.

Improving practice and building capacity

Some suggestions to improve general practice under the RMA should include:

  • adequate funding of initiatives that promote best practice and the sharing of good ideas such as the Ministry for the Environment administered Quality Planning website
  • a programme of one-to-one engagement with councils in developing and implementing high quality administrative systems building on the existing programme initiated by the Ministry for the Environment
  • developing a programme aimed at building a culture of continuous improvement in the resource management field including schemes that recognise and reward good performance and good outcomes, such as the Performance Excellence Study Award programme
  • a wider capacity building programme aimed at important players in resource management performance — iwi, applicants and the general public
  • framework for implementing the Act
  • introducing an enforceable test under Section 32 for the efficiency and effectiveness of plans
  • developing guidelines on themes such as biodiversity
  • peer reviewing district plans or an ERO type review office to vet and approve plans
  • contestable consent processing
  • specific training on heritage/cultural values.

Some of your suggestions on improving practice have been included earlier under “Improving consent decision making at council level”.

Last updated: 6 May 2008