Replacing the RMA
Hon Chris Bishop:
Good morning, it is great to be with you.
Can I first acknowledge the Resource Management Law Association for hosting us here today.
Can I also acknowledge my Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Simon Court, who is on stage with me. He has assisted me in establishing the initial framework for reform of the RMA that I plan to run you through today, as per the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreement to replace the RMA, so it is only right he assists me in giving this speech as well.
I also want to acknowledge you here in the room. What you do matters. Resource management matters.
It protects our natural environment. It decides how we use land. It coordinates infrastructure with development. It is a crucial part of growth.
This country’s future depends on a resource management system that works.
But if we are honest, the RMA isn’t working.
It’s too hard to build a house.
It’s too hard to build roads, water and other infrastructure.
It’s too hard to secure the energy we need, including from renewables.
High compliance costs have not always delivered the environmental outcomes we all want.
The RMA protects the environment by resisting growth.
Three years to consent housing developments. Eight years to consent a wind farm. Nearly a decade to extend a port.
But delaying development does not protect the environment. Eventually, houses and wind farms and other infrastructure must be built.
We need a resource management system that gets to the decision.
We need a resource management system that protects the environment not by resisting growth but by setting clear rules so growth occurs within limits.
Today I want to outline the long-term replacement for the RMA.
Cabinet has agreed the high-level principles for the system which will replace the Resource Management Act.
In a moment, I will go through the details of the new system and next steps. But first I want to set out progress we have made so far.
Progress to date
It is less than a year since the new Government formed. In that time, we have achieved a lot.
Our main goal is to rebuild the New Zealand economy. And a major pillar of our programme is RMA reform.
It is widely accepted that the resource management system is not fit for purpose. Consensus on that point was reached almost a decade ago.
We have divided our reform into three phases.
Phase One was the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act. That was completed late last year.
These Acts were well-intentioned but badly designed and would not have delivered what was promised had they continued.
Our decision to repeal those Acts and the years of work behind them was not taken lightly, but it was the right decision.
Phase Two reforms the RMA to improve its performance. Our goal is to remove unnecessary regulations for primary industries and barriers to investment in development and infrastructure while maintaining environmental protections.
Phase Two includes Fast Track, a one-stop-shop consenting and permitting regime for regionally and nationally significant projects.
Phase Two also includes making changes to the RMA in two amendment Bills and a package of National Direction changes.
We introduced the first Bill in May. It includes changes to freshwater management, stock exclusion and winter grazing rules, marine farming consents, and Significant Natural Areas.
This Bill also streamlined the process for changes to national direction.
I expect to introduce the second RM amendment Bill to Parliament before the end of the year and pass it into law in mid-2025. The National Direction package will follow the same timeline. We have deliberately aligned these reforms so that you do not feel like you’re in a constant loop of consultation after consultation after consultation.
We have grouped changes to legislation and national direction into four buckets:
The reforms of Phase Two will carry over into the long-term replacement for the RMA which is the focus of Phase Three.
Replacing the RMA
We began with the problem. We were, and are, determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the RMA. We had to understand where the RMA went wrong.
The RMA has become a vehicle to stifle growth.
It treats development as privilege. It demands too many consents. Consents take too long and require too much paperwork. Too many councils spend too long in court. The courts end up rewriting plans written by elected councils.
The RMA tries to do too many things.
When it passed in 1991, the RMA repealed more than 50 statutes, everything from the Town and Country Planning Act to the Kumara Sludge Channel Act 1889.
This consolidation was a significant achievement in its own right.
But it went one step too far by putting environmental protection and development under a single purpose statement that has been interpreted as putting the environment first.
That made development a problem.
Of course, our standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment.
But their futures also depend on whether they can afford a home, and on food and energy security, access to transport and public services, and the ability to make a living.
Despite the best of intentions, integrated management has failed. The broad scope of the RMA, covering everything from trout to culture to social and economic well-being, allowed the enormous power of land use regulation to be misused.
In principle, the RMA was limited to effects. But as court judgments watered down the concept of effects, the RMA’s scope expanded like a balloon at a clown convention.
The end result is massive complexity, a multi-billion-dollar compliance industry, and one of the least affordable housing markets in the OECD.
Because red tape means exclusion. Adding years and uncertainty to housing and other developments locks people out of houses. Somebody has to miss out.
And that means more people in cars. More kids growing up in emergency motels. An entire generation of New Zealanders who think they will never own a home.
It does not have to be this way. Housing is fundamental. It is the foundation of social stability and security.
Fixing the housing crisis is the single most important thing this government can do to improve the living standards for New Zealanders.
That’s why we need a resource management system that works.
Overarching goals
Simon Court MP:
I am pleased to announce today that Cabinet has agreed to the overarching goals for the new system. At its core, we must make it easier to get things done.
It must be easier to build a house.
It must be easier to build the road and water supply and other infrastructure to that house.
It must be easier to build the lines and generation to power that house.
And it also must enable growth in our primary sector – something fundamental to our success as a nation.
Resource management reform must start with being clear about what RM is for.
That is why Cabinet has agreed that the new resource management system will have three core tasks:
There will be fewer consents. The scope of consent will be carefully limited. Councils will be accountable for their actions.
Our goal is to build an enduring system by getting the fundamentals right.
The new system will be rules-based and embed respect for property rights and the rule of law.
As far as possible, property owners should know in advance what they cannot do with their properties, rather than find out part-way through a development when their consent is issued.
The new RM system must make decisions that are timely, predictable and efficient.
And RM must cease to be a vehicle for taking. Development will go from a privilege to a protected right.
Details
Hon Chris Bishop:
Those are the high-level outcomes we want from the new system. Here are some of the details that Cabinet has agreed to.
The new system will be narrower in scope and the effects it controls. RM is powerful. Its scope should be limited and well-defined. We want a system focused on material effects and not used for other purposes.
For example, councils will not be able to manage building interiors using the planning system.
The resource management system should protect the natural environment and provide property owners with assurance against unreasonable activities next door. However, resource management decisions should not shelter businesses from competitors, allow councils to restrict land use to manage financial pressures from infrastructure, or require developers and infrastructure providers to “gold plate” projects.
The Government will replace the RMA with two Acts, one to manage environmental effects, the other to enable urban development and infrastructure.
New Zealand’s 30-year experiment in integrated management will end, bringing our system into line with most other OECD countries.
Quantified environmental limits, set by regional councils, should manage activities and control discharges for each environmental domain. The system will enable innovative methods for water and nutrient allocations to manage over-cap catchments back within environmental limits.
The new system will provide for a greater use of national standards, setting minimum requirements for developments, infrastructure and other processes that are currently regulated via consents. Standards will reduce the number and scope of consents and simplify council plans.
I would like to see standardised zones, particularly in urban areas, introduced through national standards which will greatly simplify plans and reduce barriers to competition.
A system which is more permissive will require an increased focus on compliance monitoring, as well as heavier penalties for those who don’t play by the rules. Work is underway to determine the best way to achieve and fund this.
Spatial planning and a simplified designation process will lower the cost of future infrastructure.
There will be one plan per region to be jointly prepared by regional and district councils. This will remove the hierarchy between regional and district plans.
There will be rapid, low-cost dispute resolution between neighbours, property owners, and councils embedded into the system. Further work will determine how best to achieve this, including the potential for a new Planning Tribunal, similar to the Disputes Tribunal, to resolve disputes quickly and affordably.
The role of national direction will change. Currently, there are 29 national directions producing conflicting obligations. These conflicts are resolved by the strength of wording in directions. This is no way to manage resources.
Using blanket rules to determine priorities isn’t a good approach. Biodiversity or renewable energy – pick one.
But of course, we actually want both.
National direction should become more enabling by setting minimum requirements for activities, with less focus on managing competing priorities.
The system will uphold Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and the Crown’s obligations.
Overall, we aim to develop a system that is faster, cheaper and less litigious, within shorter, less complex and more accessible legislation.
Outcomes
Simon Court MP:
So, what does all of this mean in practice?
For households and businesses, it will mean lower compliance costs, faster decisions, greater certainty about what they can and cannot do on their land, and more affordable housing.
Height limits and setback rules will continue to protect existing homes from inappropriate developments next door. That is the core business of any planning system.
For councils, the new system will empower councils by recognising the right of elected councils to make decisions. Councils must be able to plan their regions and set local environmental limits without the constant threat of judicial review or prosecution.
Councils will have safe harbours to exercise their authority. But councils will make their judgements within clear boundaries.
There will be a “double-bottom line”, so Councils will be required to provide for essential human needs such as housing, food production, drinking water and sanitation within environmental limits.
People must be able to live. No environmental limit should make it impossible to building housing, produce food or energy, or provide transport.
The right to housing and other essentials will be beyond question. Councils will decide where, not if, development occurs in their region.
If development cannot occur within environmental limits in one area, then development must occur in another.
The double bottom line is an alternative organising framework for the RMA’s hierarchy in Part 2, and far simpler. RM does not have to choose between competing priorities to protect the environment. It can set and maintain environmental limits.
For developers, the new system will provide more certainty with limited scope and greater checks and balances.
The system will be strictly effects-based and should operate on a principle of no duplication.
Councils will not be able to ask for information or demand a consent for any aspect of a development that has no material effects on the natural environment or another property owner, or if it is covered by and complies with another law, national standard, or is subject to a private agreement among all affected parties. The commitment to property rights in the coalition agreement between National and ACT is highly significant.
It establishes the principle that regulation over the use of property must be justified, and that regulation must be proportional to effects.
IMPLEMENTATION
Hon Chris Bishop:
The reforms I have outlined today are extensive and ambitious, and I am acutely aware of the need to reset the resource management system in a way that is pragmatic and targets the most significant issues first.
The previous government’s reforms would have taken ten years to implement which is time our country doesn’t have to start improving our productivity and addressing our infrastructure deficit.
We already have an extensive work programme underway to improve the resource management system in Phase Two, including developing a significant amount of new national direction under the RMA.
These instruments from Phase Two, and other important elements of the existing system such as plans will transfer over, with a “switching off” of any elements incompatible with the new system.
This is critical to accelerate and smooth the transition, lightening the load on councils and those who use the resource management system, and avoiding long implementation times. Some RMA settings will be retained for this work to be carried forward with minimal disruption, and to uphold Treaty settlements.
These proposals will not change the existing core resource management roles of councils, but rather how these roles are performed. By limiting scope and targeting council effort to more complex issues, the replacement system will deliver reduced costs to both councils and ratepayers.
The reform proposals will be designed in such a way that enables rapid transition to the new system. The previous government’s Natural and Built Environment Act would have required 10 years for plans to be updated around the country, and I consider this far too long.
The proposed Phase Three changes will be designed to be implemented as quickly as possible and to minimise disruption on those who use the system, to avoid repeating the previous government’s mistake.
Next steps
That summarises the main features of the new system.
To test and refine the policy behind these proposals, today I am also announcing the establishment of an Expert Advisory Group, or EAG. This group is made up of experts with relevant technical knowledge ranging from resource management law to planning and te ao Māori.
The EAG will bring fresh thinking, expertise and practical knowledge, working closely with officials from across government to make sure Ministers can make the decisions needed to draft the new legislation as quickly as possible.
They will take the ideas I have discussed today and work to develop a blueprint for replacing the RMA.
I am not asking them to draft a new door stop to replace the Randerson report, but rather a workable and practical plan that officials can quickly turn into new legislation. This blueprint is due back to me before Christmas.
Janette Campbell will chair the group. Janette is a barrister at Bankside Chambers and has been a leading expert on resource management over her 25-year career. She has previously been an independent commissioner and is a former director of the Environmental Defence Society.
Other members of the group include:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the EAG for lending their expertise to this important programme of work. I know a few of you are in the audience today – Janette and Paul - and I look forward to working with you as the policy develops.
Public consultation on the proposals will occur primarily through the select committee process, unless otherwise required by law as is the case for some Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
Conclusion
Simon Court MP:
This is a line in the sand that the RMA cannot and will not persist. As an engineer who’s had to endure the RMA’s pain, I am relieved to be turning this corner, and I’m sure this sentiment will be shared by many.
The engineers, scientists, ecologists, and their clients have proven they can get things built while respecting the environment. Finally, we are empowering them.
New Zealand has the opportunity to unleash growth and improve the environment by fixing resource management. Our goal is to replace red tape with clear rules to unlock the double dividend of higher growth and better environmental outcomes.
By redirecting only a fraction of the resources consumed by RMA processes, we can protect the environment and provide clear pathways for investment and growth within environmental limits.
The success of these reforms will be the step change in resource management this country needs to thrive in every sense in the coming decades.
We will need your help to turn this opportunity into reality. Thank you.
Chris Bishop is a National Party MP, currently the Minister for housing, resource management and infrastructure.
Simon Court MP is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform. Simon was first elected to Parliament as an ACT Party MP in 2020.
This article was first published HERE
It protects our natural environment. It decides how we use land. It coordinates infrastructure with development. It is a crucial part of growth.
This country’s future depends on a resource management system that works.
But if we are honest, the RMA isn’t working.
It’s too hard to build a house.
It’s too hard to build roads, water and other infrastructure.
It’s too hard to secure the energy we need, including from renewables.
High compliance costs have not always delivered the environmental outcomes we all want.
The RMA protects the environment by resisting growth.
Three years to consent housing developments. Eight years to consent a wind farm. Nearly a decade to extend a port.
But delaying development does not protect the environment. Eventually, houses and wind farms and other infrastructure must be built.
We need a resource management system that gets to the decision.
We need a resource management system that protects the environment not by resisting growth but by setting clear rules so growth occurs within limits.
Today I want to outline the long-term replacement for the RMA.
Cabinet has agreed the high-level principles for the system which will replace the Resource Management Act.
In a moment, I will go through the details of the new system and next steps. But first I want to set out progress we have made so far.
Progress to date
It is less than a year since the new Government formed. In that time, we have achieved a lot.
Our main goal is to rebuild the New Zealand economy. And a major pillar of our programme is RMA reform.
It is widely accepted that the resource management system is not fit for purpose. Consensus on that point was reached almost a decade ago.
We have divided our reform into three phases.
Phase One was the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act. That was completed late last year.
These Acts were well-intentioned but badly designed and would not have delivered what was promised had they continued.
Our decision to repeal those Acts and the years of work behind them was not taken lightly, but it was the right decision.
Phase Two reforms the RMA to improve its performance. Our goal is to remove unnecessary regulations for primary industries and barriers to investment in development and infrastructure while maintaining environmental protections.
Phase Two includes Fast Track, a one-stop-shop consenting and permitting regime for regionally and nationally significant projects.
Phase Two also includes making changes to the RMA in two amendment Bills and a package of National Direction changes.
We introduced the first Bill in May. It includes changes to freshwater management, stock exclusion and winter grazing rules, marine farming consents, and Significant Natural Areas.
This Bill also streamlined the process for changes to national direction.
I expect to introduce the second RM amendment Bill to Parliament before the end of the year and pass it into law in mid-2025. The National Direction package will follow the same timeline. We have deliberately aligned these reforms so that you do not feel like you’re in a constant loop of consultation after consultation after consultation.
We have grouped changes to legislation and national direction into four buckets:
- The Infrastructure and Energy package includes a new NPS-Infrastructure; extends the duration of port coastal permits by 20 years; and includes changes for telecommunications, renewable energy and quarrying.
- The Housing package introduces 30-year Housing Growth Targets; allows councils to opt out of Medium Density Residential Standards; changes national directions for urban development and highly productive land; and enables granny flats.
- The Farming and Primary Sector package gives effect to National Party and Coalition commitments for agriculture to boost on-farm productivity and removes barriers to indoor primary production and solar farms.
- Finally, the Emergency and Natural Hazards package will introduce a comprehensive, nationally consistent framework to manage natural hazard risks including climate change.
The reforms of Phase Two will carry over into the long-term replacement for the RMA which is the focus of Phase Three.
Replacing the RMA
We began with the problem. We were, and are, determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the RMA. We had to understand where the RMA went wrong.
The RMA has become a vehicle to stifle growth.
It treats development as privilege. It demands too many consents. Consents take too long and require too much paperwork. Too many councils spend too long in court. The courts end up rewriting plans written by elected councils.
The RMA tries to do too many things.
When it passed in 1991, the RMA repealed more than 50 statutes, everything from the Town and Country Planning Act to the Kumara Sludge Channel Act 1889.
This consolidation was a significant achievement in its own right.
But it went one step too far by putting environmental protection and development under a single purpose statement that has been interpreted as putting the environment first.
That made development a problem.
Of course, our standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment.
But their futures also depend on whether they can afford a home, and on food and energy security, access to transport and public services, and the ability to make a living.
Despite the best of intentions, integrated management has failed. The broad scope of the RMA, covering everything from trout to culture to social and economic well-being, allowed the enormous power of land use regulation to be misused.
In principle, the RMA was limited to effects. But as court judgments watered down the concept of effects, the RMA’s scope expanded like a balloon at a clown convention.
The end result is massive complexity, a multi-billion-dollar compliance industry, and one of the least affordable housing markets in the OECD.
Because red tape means exclusion. Adding years and uncertainty to housing and other developments locks people out of houses. Somebody has to miss out.
And that means more people in cars. More kids growing up in emergency motels. An entire generation of New Zealanders who think they will never own a home.
It does not have to be this way. Housing is fundamental. It is the foundation of social stability and security.
Fixing the housing crisis is the single most important thing this government can do to improve the living standards for New Zealanders.
That’s why we need a resource management system that works.
Overarching goals
Simon Court MP:
I am pleased to announce today that Cabinet has agreed to the overarching goals for the new system. At its core, we must make it easier to get things done.
It must be easier to build a house.
It must be easier to build the road and water supply and other infrastructure to that house.
It must be easier to build the lines and generation to power that house.
And it also must enable growth in our primary sector – something fundamental to our success as a nation.
Resource management reform must start with being clear about what RM is for.
That is why Cabinet has agreed that the new resource management system will have three core tasks:
- unlocking development capacity for housing and business growth
- enabling delivery of high-quality infrastructure for the future, including doubling renewable energy
- enabling primary sector growth and development (including aquaculture, forestry, pastoral, horticulture, and mining)
- safeguarding the environment and human health
- adapting to the effects of climate change and reducing the risks from natural hazards
- improving regulatory quality in the resource management system
- upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlements and other related arrangements
There will be fewer consents. The scope of consent will be carefully limited. Councils will be accountable for their actions.
Our goal is to build an enduring system by getting the fundamentals right.
The new system will be rules-based and embed respect for property rights and the rule of law.
As far as possible, property owners should know in advance what they cannot do with their properties, rather than find out part-way through a development when their consent is issued.
The new RM system must make decisions that are timely, predictable and efficient.
And RM must cease to be a vehicle for taking. Development will go from a privilege to a protected right.
Details
Hon Chris Bishop:
Those are the high-level outcomes we want from the new system. Here are some of the details that Cabinet has agreed to.
The new system will be narrower in scope and the effects it controls. RM is powerful. Its scope should be limited and well-defined. We want a system focused on material effects and not used for other purposes.
For example, councils will not be able to manage building interiors using the planning system.
The resource management system should protect the natural environment and provide property owners with assurance against unreasonable activities next door. However, resource management decisions should not shelter businesses from competitors, allow councils to restrict land use to manage financial pressures from infrastructure, or require developers and infrastructure providers to “gold plate” projects.
The Government will replace the RMA with two Acts, one to manage environmental effects, the other to enable urban development and infrastructure.
New Zealand’s 30-year experiment in integrated management will end, bringing our system into line with most other OECD countries.
Quantified environmental limits, set by regional councils, should manage activities and control discharges for each environmental domain. The system will enable innovative methods for water and nutrient allocations to manage over-cap catchments back within environmental limits.
The new system will provide for a greater use of national standards, setting minimum requirements for developments, infrastructure and other processes that are currently regulated via consents. Standards will reduce the number and scope of consents and simplify council plans.
I would like to see standardised zones, particularly in urban areas, introduced through national standards which will greatly simplify plans and reduce barriers to competition.
A system which is more permissive will require an increased focus on compliance monitoring, as well as heavier penalties for those who don’t play by the rules. Work is underway to determine the best way to achieve and fund this.
Spatial planning and a simplified designation process will lower the cost of future infrastructure.
There will be one plan per region to be jointly prepared by regional and district councils. This will remove the hierarchy between regional and district plans.
There will be rapid, low-cost dispute resolution between neighbours, property owners, and councils embedded into the system. Further work will determine how best to achieve this, including the potential for a new Planning Tribunal, similar to the Disputes Tribunal, to resolve disputes quickly and affordably.
The role of national direction will change. Currently, there are 29 national directions producing conflicting obligations. These conflicts are resolved by the strength of wording in directions. This is no way to manage resources.
Using blanket rules to determine priorities isn’t a good approach. Biodiversity or renewable energy – pick one.
But of course, we actually want both.
National direction should become more enabling by setting minimum requirements for activities, with less focus on managing competing priorities.
The system will uphold Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and the Crown’s obligations.
Overall, we aim to develop a system that is faster, cheaper and less litigious, within shorter, less complex and more accessible legislation.
Outcomes
Simon Court MP:
So, what does all of this mean in practice?
For households and businesses, it will mean lower compliance costs, faster decisions, greater certainty about what they can and cannot do on their land, and more affordable housing.
Height limits and setback rules will continue to protect existing homes from inappropriate developments next door. That is the core business of any planning system.
For councils, the new system will empower councils by recognising the right of elected councils to make decisions. Councils must be able to plan their regions and set local environmental limits without the constant threat of judicial review or prosecution.
Councils will have safe harbours to exercise their authority. But councils will make their judgements within clear boundaries.
There will be a “double-bottom line”, so Councils will be required to provide for essential human needs such as housing, food production, drinking water and sanitation within environmental limits.
People must be able to live. No environmental limit should make it impossible to building housing, produce food or energy, or provide transport.
The right to housing and other essentials will be beyond question. Councils will decide where, not if, development occurs in their region.
If development cannot occur within environmental limits in one area, then development must occur in another.
The double bottom line is an alternative organising framework for the RMA’s hierarchy in Part 2, and far simpler. RM does not have to choose between competing priorities to protect the environment. It can set and maintain environmental limits.
For developers, the new system will provide more certainty with limited scope and greater checks and balances.
The system will be strictly effects-based and should operate on a principle of no duplication.
Councils will not be able to ask for information or demand a consent for any aspect of a development that has no material effects on the natural environment or another property owner, or if it is covered by and complies with another law, national standard, or is subject to a private agreement among all affected parties. The commitment to property rights in the coalition agreement between National and ACT is highly significant.
It establishes the principle that regulation over the use of property must be justified, and that regulation must be proportional to effects.
IMPLEMENTATION
Hon Chris Bishop:
The reforms I have outlined today are extensive and ambitious, and I am acutely aware of the need to reset the resource management system in a way that is pragmatic and targets the most significant issues first.
The previous government’s reforms would have taken ten years to implement which is time our country doesn’t have to start improving our productivity and addressing our infrastructure deficit.
We already have an extensive work programme underway to improve the resource management system in Phase Two, including developing a significant amount of new national direction under the RMA.
These instruments from Phase Two, and other important elements of the existing system such as plans will transfer over, with a “switching off” of any elements incompatible with the new system.
This is critical to accelerate and smooth the transition, lightening the load on councils and those who use the resource management system, and avoiding long implementation times. Some RMA settings will be retained for this work to be carried forward with minimal disruption, and to uphold Treaty settlements.
These proposals will not change the existing core resource management roles of councils, but rather how these roles are performed. By limiting scope and targeting council effort to more complex issues, the replacement system will deliver reduced costs to both councils and ratepayers.
The reform proposals will be designed in such a way that enables rapid transition to the new system. The previous government’s Natural and Built Environment Act would have required 10 years for plans to be updated around the country, and I consider this far too long.
The proposed Phase Three changes will be designed to be implemented as quickly as possible and to minimise disruption on those who use the system, to avoid repeating the previous government’s mistake.
Next steps
That summarises the main features of the new system.
To test and refine the policy behind these proposals, today I am also announcing the establishment of an Expert Advisory Group, or EAG. This group is made up of experts with relevant technical knowledge ranging from resource management law to planning and te ao Māori.
The EAG will bring fresh thinking, expertise and practical knowledge, working closely with officials from across government to make sure Ministers can make the decisions needed to draft the new legislation as quickly as possible.
They will take the ideas I have discussed today and work to develop a blueprint for replacing the RMA.
I am not asking them to draft a new door stop to replace the Randerson report, but rather a workable and practical plan that officials can quickly turn into new legislation. This blueprint is due back to me before Christmas.
Janette Campbell will chair the group. Janette is a barrister at Bankside Chambers and has been a leading expert on resource management over her 25-year career. She has previously been an independent commissioner and is a former director of the Environmental Defence Society.
Other members of the group include:
- Lawyer and former Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group Chair Rukumoana Schaafhausen;
- Urban, environmental, competition, and regulatory economist Kevin Counsell;
- Environmental scientist Gillian Crowcroft;
- Resource management consultant and planner Mark Chrisp;
- Agricultural policy expert Paul Melville; and
- Christine Jones, whose 20-year career in local government has covered everything from city planning and growth to infrastructure planning, water, and transportation policy.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the EAG for lending their expertise to this important programme of work. I know a few of you are in the audience today – Janette and Paul - and I look forward to working with you as the policy develops.
Public consultation on the proposals will occur primarily through the select committee process, unless otherwise required by law as is the case for some Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
Conclusion
Simon Court MP:
This is a line in the sand that the RMA cannot and will not persist. As an engineer who’s had to endure the RMA’s pain, I am relieved to be turning this corner, and I’m sure this sentiment will be shared by many.
The engineers, scientists, ecologists, and their clients have proven they can get things built while respecting the environment. Finally, we are empowering them.
New Zealand has the opportunity to unleash growth and improve the environment by fixing resource management. Our goal is to replace red tape with clear rules to unlock the double dividend of higher growth and better environmental outcomes.
By redirecting only a fraction of the resources consumed by RMA processes, we can protect the environment and provide clear pathways for investment and growth within environmental limits.
The success of these reforms will be the step change in resource management this country needs to thrive in every sense in the coming decades.
We will need your help to turn this opportunity into reality. Thank you.
This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
WHY is this speech including ethnicity? WHY do maori and Treaty of Waitangi qualify above the rest of NZ. STOP the racism being included in the new RMA. A united NZ is of far greater importance than fixing a deplorable existing RMA
Well there is a lot to digest there.
The RMA was OK until it was tinkered with by Governments .
There are a number of issues of major concern in this dialogue and one for a start is renewable energy getting some priority when it is an appalling move environmentally and climate change given any position for consideration is a red flag.
The environment will be plundered for 'housing ' instead of alternative policies to check 'growth ' and enable a more productive economy.
I worked for 5 years on one consent and could have sorted that by changing one clause is the RMA.
Why does te ao maori get special mention and consideration? Is the message ever going to get through to this government? We are all equal under the law. Maori are not more equal than any other New Zealanders, irrespective of their ancestors and when they arrived here. All legislation must be colour blind. No more racist division. No more open invitations to race based grifting and rent seeking.
"upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlements and other related arrangements"
The 2nd part of that statement is just a benign way of saying upholding the "principles" of the treaty of Waitangi.
If this is not clearly defined, it will just be another avenue for the ongoing gravy train.
The whole change will be for nothing.
Stop the racism at all costs.
We are at a tipping point with democracy, and unless all this continued reference to the Treaty is rejected, the greater the imbalance, resulting in a calamity that we can't recover from.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.