OPINION: RMA reforms – what's back on the table?

OPINION

The re-elected National government is expected to fast-track the next round of Resource Management Act reforms in the coming months, a process that may have far-reaching implications.

An effective and efficient resource management system is an important part of building business confidence in this country. Investors require certainty. But so do communities. Whether you are a farmer, property developer or a recreational kayaker, you want to know what lies ahead.

Phase One of the RMA reforms was put in place in 2009 and sought to streamline and simplify the Act. Phase Two is being described as a fundamental "reboot" of the resource management system.  

The most pressing need is to get the system working in a way that achieves sensible outcomes. As lawyers, we often see parties get bogged down in process. The proposed reforms are designed to make the system easier to use, increase certainty and reduce unnecessary delay or cost. Anything that reduces complexity and uncertainty must surely be an improvement on the current situation.  

There appears to be general support for greater national consistency and guidance, which is a key aspect of the RMA reforms. The concept of template plans has merit, although this could turn out to be a major undertaking for councils that are already well down the track of developing their second generation plans under the RMA. Simpler and fewer resource management plans with common definitions certainly sounds like a good idea. Who needs more plans?  

There is also considerable merit in developing more efficient consenting processes. The proposed reforms are likely to include a short 10-working day processing time for straightforward consents and approved exemptions from the need to obtain consent for technical or marginal breaches of rules (for example, where a residential house exceeds site coverage by half a square metre).  

Such steps are to be welcomed where this removes unnecessary red tape, although there has been disquiet from some quarters over the potential dilution of submitter rights in the process. The reforms are also likely to include changes to the "affected party" criteria and limits on what can be covered in submissions on publicly notified consents.

It may seem odd for a lawyer to say this, but the adversarial process has its limits. There is generally a solution to RMA problems. It is important for local communities to talk to each other, not past each other. Get around the table and work things out. Ask your local council for help. You might be surprised at what can be achieved with a bit of plain talking and willingness to compromise to get things done.  

Make use of the pre-hearing option as this may well become mandatory as a result of the reforms.  Applicants and submitters alike can benefit from such an approach. Spend a bit of time up front and you may avoid a whole lot of grief where the process descends into a courtroom battle, no matter what side of the RMA debate you sit on. Collaborative processes really do have their place. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is an example of where this could work but only if everyone is willing to try and find solutions. It is not always easy but it can be done. 

Where the controversy over the next round of reforms will no doubt lie, is with proposed changes to the "principles" of the RMA. These are contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Act, and include such phrases as "amenity values." The phraseology has been fodder for lawyers for many years. This needs to change. Let's not kid ourselves though. Balancing environmental protection and development principles will be no easy task. The trick will be in getting the balance right without losing sight of the key purpose of the RMA.  

A new principle is likely to encourage the effective functioning of the built environment, including the availability of land to support changes in population and urban development demand. The basic premise is to ensure there is adequate supply of land to provide for several years of projected population growth. This is to be welcomed, particularly if it assists in delivering more affordable housing for our communities.

There is likely to be recognition of private property rights within the RMA and this will no doubt be a matter of debate. This aspect of the proposed reform seeks to ensure that restrictions are not imposed on the use of private land, except to the extent that any restriction is reasonably required to achieve the purpose of this Act. How this plays out in practice will, as always, depend on the way in which the Act is interpreted and implemented.

It is not necessarily the act that is broken. Rather, it is the way it has been implemented around the country over the past 20 years or so. The basic premise of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of our natural and physical resources. This is about managing things wisely so that there is enough left for the kids and grandkids. No one can seriously argue with that.  

It is not about standing still and imposing environmental protection at all costs. However, nor does it provide the mandate to run roughshod over environmental values in the blind pursuit of development.  Talk about removing barriers to growth is all well and good, but when it comes to the sustainable management of natural resources there is not always a quick bulldozer path. The key measure of success will be in the development of well-considered solutions. This will be advanced by quality leadership and a concerted effort by all stakeholders to work together. 

Ask yourself this – what will future generations think about our actions today? Will they be proud of the legacy we leave? It’s not a question of choosing between a strong economy and environmental protection. As a nation, we can achieve both. It is about being responsible.

We are faced with a great opportunity to build resilience and business confidence in our economy which will be the envy of many other developed countries, while staying true to what makes this country special with its abundance of natural resources. Let's get on with it.

Jen Crawford is a partner with national law firm Anderson Lloyd. She advises on all aspects of resource management law with a particular focus on urban and lifestyle developments, agribusiness and the irrigation sector.