Gerrard Eckhoff: The RMA

First of all -the good news. The Resource Management Act (RMA) is gone for good. After reaping destruction over our productive sectors - of all hues for past thirty-five years, the RMA is to be finally to be consigned to the scrap heap of history. The former National Party Minister for the Environment and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment from 2017 - Simon Upton - apologized for the Act in his valedictory speech in 2001. It’s taken 30 odd years for Parliament to finally realize just how torturous the RMA was on the economy. The experiment in environmental socialism - where everybody and their pet dog had the chance to delay, obstruct, hinder and otherwise impede the productive sectors’ desire to grow the economy, is now reaping a failed harvest. 

 The legacy of the RMA - once touted as world leading legislation for all nations to follow, has taken this country down a rabbit warren of consents where the cost far outweighed the benefit. No other country has followed our legislative example of self-harm. Property and human rights to property ownership were set aside in favor of creating a form of environmental welfarism. The RMA took away individual property rights and distributed them to special interest groups. Councils were even able to identify what was described as an outstanding natural feature on private land and control its land use thereby reducing, if not destroying real value. The same people who promoted the RMA also wanted more hospitals and schools built; more help for the homeless, safer roading infrastructure and all to be financed by a shrinking productive sector. We need a fully functioning, fully specified hospital in Dunedin and elsewhere in NZ but thanks in large measures to the RMA, we no longer can afford a 1st world health system. What the RMA has delivered in spades - is the legacy of pine trees all over NZ – soon to be the worst environmental disaster since the introduction of rabbits and gorse.

For too many rural people, the RMA enforced a silent transfer of authority away from the rightful owner of natural values who once had a daily hands-on control- to a high level of interest group control through an informal “taking” process. The great tragedy of the RMA was the removal of personal responsibility to unaccountable authorities such as regional councils. The only thing the RMA ever built was resentment. We desperately need the authorities to rebuild trust and respect in land managers to be integral part of the new environmental bills’ outcome

Now for the bad news - which means more of the same. The consultative process of the RMA was a farce. Under the RMA, consultation means - Councils decide and we comply. There is no sign that the vital consultative process will be any better than the past one which failed us all as constant appeals to the Environment court show. It is vitally important that the new bills require genuine consultation into the future at the start of a process - not at the end. Currently, once a council has decided on a plan of action, they ask for public comment, which in turn is all but ignored. The public must therefore be engaged from day one, with all sides of a contentious issue being fully examined before the plan is formally drafted. A new and trusted consultative process holds the key to success or failure of the new environmental bills. The contentious issue around minimum flows in rivers is a case in point. A river authority made up of water users and recreational users offers up an opportunity for all sides of the water debate to find solutions that can work for all. The relevant Ministers show no sign of understanding that crucial necessity. It seems to work well on the Waikato River so it surely can work on all other river systems. There is no need for continuing the expediential growth in bureaucratic controls that produce entrenched division within society in the name of environmental protection. The role of the new bill follows the old RMA too closely and will continue to allow for productive capacity to be thwarted. Nor can there be a special consultative process for some but not for others. Maori have no prior nor particular right to a separate consultation process as the new bills allow.

Policy around freshwater storage and uses need a new but separate advisory body. The Otago Regional Council wrongly decided that water permits (that were once legal water rights) now need to be renewed every 6 years. In one foul stroke they cancelled any substantial private rural investment in water infrastructure (dams). As the supply of fresh water for all users increases, so too does the need to secure long-term investment in water harvesting. This presents a huge opportunity for Maori to combine both commercial and environmental interests in water while building new infrastructure. Prioritizing water harvesting must be foremost in any new environmental legislation.

Further there is little indication that the lessons learnt from the Kaikoura earthquake have been headed in the new bill. The RMA was suspended to allow fast reinstatement of the roading infrastructure to occur after massive damage. Not only was the work done expeditiously, but it also won an international award for the environmental sensitivity of the contractors. That lesson has not been learned in Wellington.

In a recent excellent opinion piece Bernard Jennings highlighted the imperative of using unambiguous wording in the new bills so that the courts cannot wrongly interpret the intent of the act. If that does not happen, we may well go from the frying pan into the fire. That cannot be allowed to happen. As election year is upon us, we must all demand real reform of both the RMA and Local Government. The new Bills must deliver a vital outcome - trust in the processes. Perhaps a newfound respect for the authorities may also result.

Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.