Editorial: New bill prompts concern

Andrew Bonallack.

Both local and central government would undoubtedly prefer that resource consents not be opposed in vexatious fashion, especially by those who don't appear to be connected to the situation, or just oppose on principle. But there is a proposed piece of legislation proceeding through Parliament which should be a major red flag for those who believe in holding councils to account.

The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill proposes changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that would significantly trample on those who feel a proposed resource consent would have significant effects on their locality.

Under the RMA, the "likely to be more than minor" test has been the threshold for a proposal to be opened up to the public for submissions. Of course, what constitutes "minor" is pretty subjective, but nonetheless it was there.

Under this new bill, councils can be more restrictive. According to Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright, the Minister could exclude certain activities from notification and particular people from making submissions.

She also warns amendments to the "more than minor" test could mean councils would ignore a major adverse effect on the environment.

Another issue is councils restricting concerns submitters are allowed to cover. The council would be able to ignore what could actually be relevant information.

And it seems any kind of subdivision or residential development would not have to be notified.

Already the Dunedin City Council is calling it "an attack on democracy", saying people would have to hire expensive consultants to present what was previously an honest, free submission.

In my view, residents are prone to BANANA characteristics (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and can lack the good sense to realise that communities need to be progressive.

But this bill appears to be attacking people's rights to participate in the resource management process. That's not a good thing.