Raewyn Peart: RMA plans an attack on rights

The National Party's policy proposals to "rebalance" the Resource Management Act are a direct attack on people's rights to have a say on what happens to their environment.

There are several aspects to this onslaught. The first is the intention to prevent most people from even getting to the starting blocks.

Now, any person can make a submission on a resource consent application which is publicly notified. But as less than 5 per cent of all applications are publicly notified, only a small number are open to public scrutiny anyway.

This already limited ability to become involved in development proposals is to be significantly eroded by National, which is proposing to limit involvement to people directly affected. That provision removes significant rights of people to protect their property interests and the environment. It is a backward move.

Secondly, even if a person is able to pass this first hurdle and establish legal standing, his or her ability to make a submission at the local council level might be further eroded by National's proposal to enable applicants to seek direct referral to the Environment Court.

A submitter will need to have considerable wealth before he or she could contemplate becoming involved in Environment Court proceedings.

This is because National proposes to abolish legal aid for RMA cases, so there will be no financial support available for those without financial means.

As well, National proposes to enable the Environment Court to require security for costs and to strengthen the powers of the court to award costs in the event that the submitter fails. These measures will be another disincentive to participate for the much reduced numbers of people entitled to do so.

The cumulative effect of these provisions is to exclude people and businesses from taking part in decisions about developments happening in their communities. It is a big change with potentially serious, adverse implications for the environment.

Under National, decisions would be made in-house by local government or by the courts, largely based on information provided by the applicant, and without the benefit of a wider range of information and competing perspectives.

These provisions would also exclude voices speaking on behalf of the environment. Public interest groups, which have traditionally become involved in RMA processes to represent the broader and longer-term public interest, will no longer have the financial resources to be able to mount cases, and will not be able to survive large costs awards.

This is a big blow for the environment and will result in bad developments - which would not get approved under the RMA today - getting the go-ahead.

In a related measure, National also proposes to muzzle the Department of Conservation by limiting its role to advising councils on biodiversity and heritage issues. It looks as if the department will be unable to formally submit to protect kiwi or other endangered species.

So what will be the result of these provisions if they are implemented? They will mean poorer quality decision-making, greater degradation of our environment, more procedural litigation and huge frustration in the wider community at the new system. This is in no one's interests apart from second-rate developers who will be able to get their proposals approved more easily.

The early response to National's proposals from some business sectors has been especially disappointing.

We have seen commercial interests override social responsibility. Businesses are part of the community and should not ignore people's rights or the importance of protecting the environmental values that make our country special.

This is not to say that there is nothing of merit in the National Party's policy announcement. The proposal to establish an Environmental Protection Authority is worthy of further investigation, as is the proposal to look more closely at resource allocation issues. There is certainly a need to simplify the process for preparing and changing regional and district plans which can take years. These particular proposals seem to be the product of a more considered approach to reform.

Finally, the RMA is not half as bad as some politicians would have us believe, and although it is always possible to improve the legislation, this should not be at the expense of the underlying principle of community participation in decisions that affect the quality of our environment.

We all have a stake in keeping New Zealand clean and green.

* Raewyn Peart is a senior policy analyst with the Environmental Defence Society.