Government reveals enough support for RMA reforms to become law

See also:  RMA reforms – this isn't over, by a long chalk

The government has formally hauled down the flag on its attempts to alter the balance of environmental and economic priorities in the Resource Management Act, unveiling a 180-page Resource Legislation Amendment Bill containing reforms that have enough political support to become law.

Environment Minister Nick Smith unveiled the legislation, which will get its first reading in Parliament next Thursday and should emerge from select committee hearings by mid-2016 and may be capable of becoming law by the end of next year unless further major political objections emerge.

The Maori Party, which had opposed more fundamental changes to two of the three purpose clauses in the RMA, sections 6 and 7, is supporting the amendment package, as is the Act party, meaning the government has the bare majority required to pass the reforms.

However, Mr Smith remains hopeful that cross-party support will emerge from at least the Labour and New Zealand First parties. Labour's housing spokesman, Phil Twyford, said in September that Labour had been "waiting for a year for the government to introduce its proposed changes to the RMA" and that the party had "said all along we will support any measure – except for gutting the fundamental principles of the law – which makes it easier to build more houses in New Zealand."

In a statement today, Mr Twyford described the bill, which proposes some 200 amendments to six pieces of legislation, as "tinkering" that would not ease the Auckland housing shortage.

"If process improvements save the public time and money without trading off people's right to have a say, that will be welcomed. But nothing in this bill tackles the fundamental causes of the housing crisis," Mr Twyford said.

The United Future party's one MP, Peter Dunne, declined to engage on the substance of the proposed reforms throughout this year, preferring to see draft legislation, Mr Smith said.

As a result, a swathe of reforms that have come from a variety of recommending bodies in the last five years, and which environmental groups as well as business lobbies had been calling for, stand a good chance of passing into legislation.

The reform announcements gained early, cautious approval from the Environmental Defence Society, which said "the bill apparently puts in place a moderate set of progressive reforms" and "has dropped the objectionable elements proposed earlier."

"In that respect, (it) is a significant win for our natural heritage and is consistent with our advocacy," EDS chairman Gary Taylor said in a statement. "The core environmental protections in Part 2 of the RMA remain intact. There are no other changes to either section 6 or section 7 so the environmental bottom lines remain intact. That is very important."

The biggest changes under the proposed reforms would be to standardise and streamline the way the dozens of local authorities around the country undertake the planning processes that are required under the RMA to improve consistency and reduce complexity; a faster and more flexible planning process with tighter timelines and greater potential for collaboration; reduced requirements for resource consents for a range of minor matters, such as small-scale home renovations; and stronger national direction on requiring provision for growth, including housing.

The only element of the proposed changes to sections 6 and 7 or the RMA are the inclusion of reference to natural hazards, a widely accepted omission from the current law.

"This is a big bill. The devil will be in the detail," said EDS's Taylor. "Red flag" areas identified already included "third plan-making track for so-called urgent situations; the provision for blended hearings for RMA consents and approvals under other acts; further limitations on standing to be a submitter; the changes to the appointment process to Environmental Protection Authority hearings; allowing councils to not require consents for minor issues; and the reversal of the presumption on subdivision."

He welcomed that earlier proposals to explicitly prioritise private rights had been dropped.

(BusinessDesk)