Editorial: Getting the RMA overhaul right
OPINION: Making it easier to get things done while protecting the environment - that's the Government's promise when it comes to the overhaul of the problematic Resource Management Act (RMA).
That’s if submissions to the Environment Committee are anything to go by.
The first draft of the Natural and Built Environment Bill (NBEB) was released in July 2021, but wasn’t introduced to the Parliament floor until November last year. At that point, it was accompanied by the Spatial Planning Bill (SPB) which is also in the committee phase.
However, two other parts of the reform package are yet to be seen by those making submissions – the Climate Adaptation Bill and the National Planning Framework (NPF).
The Ministry for the Environment says the NPF will provide direction for regional spatial strategies, set policies and standards for construction and development activities, set natural environment limits relating to water, and set targets for development within those environmental limits.
It’s claimed by many submitters that without seeing the full package, it’s difficult to gain a clear picture of what the reforms will look like.
In its submission to the committee, Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) said it could not provide a full analysis of either the NBEB or the SPB without the NPF.
“Without that detail, without additional time to consider the Bills, and in the absence of the Climate Adaptation Bill, B+LNZ is concerned that it is unable to provide a full analysis of the impact of the reforms on farmers,” the submission reads.
B+LNZ also claims that at a high level, the Bills will not create a resource management system that can improve system efficiency and effectiveness while reducing complexity.
“Substantial amounts of litigation will be required for the Bills to be properly understood and implemented, with both public and parties covering the costs of that.”
It is a sentiment that is repeated again and again, in submission after submission.
The Meat Industry Association (MIA) says it welcomes a system that not only protects the environment, but also gives confidence to businesses to make long-term investment decisions and operate in their communities.
“While we welcome working towards a more efficient and effective resource management system that deals with the problems of the existing one, we are not confident that the Bills will achieve this as they are currently presented.”
The levy body says it is concerned about the uncertainty the Bills introduce, especially because it isn’t clear how all three components – the NBEB, the SPB, and the yet-to-be introduced Climate Adaptation Bill – will work together as a whole.
“The sequencing of consultation and release of the components of the proposed system means it is very difficult to understand how it all fits together as a coherent whole,” the submission reads.
“Given the significant changes being proposed, it would have made some sense to consult on the entirety of [the] package. This would have provided the opportunity to consider the system as a whole, rather than the somewhat piecemeal approach taken.”
Meanwhile, Horticulture New Zealand (HortNZ) said that while the levy body supports the need for RMA reform, there needs to be more buy-in from stakeholders.
“As it stands, there is still considerable uncertainty around how the [NBEB] and [SPB] will be implemented, especially since a draft National Planning Framework (NPF) has not been released.”
