Muriel Newman: Tinkering with the RMA makes it much worse

Dr Muriel Newman.

As a result of last week's 7.8 magnitude earthquake, the government is considering emergency legislation to get Kaikoura back up and running.

After visiting the hard-hit region, Prime Minister John Key said, "We can't leave people high and dry. If we need emergency legislation we'll pass it".

Any new law would undoubtedly be modelled on the now-repealed Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, which enabled the government to over-ride a large number of laws, including the Resource Management Act.

The RMA, the brainchild of former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, was passed into law by National in 1991 to replace the traditional rules-based approach of the Town and Country Planning Act, with an 'effects-based' regime that would allow development, so long as adverse environmental effects were mitigated.

But the escalating costs, red tape and delays associated with the RMA have become such an impediment to growth that when National was elected to government in 2008, overhauling the law was their priority.

A two-phase process was mapped out. The first phase included establishing the Environmental Protection Authority to deal with nationally significant consents within a nine-month timeframe, removing the rules that prevented property owners trimming their own trees, shortening the timeframe for consent processing, and preventing the law being used for anti-competitive purposes.

The second phase was to focus on the core problem - the need to rebalance the RMA to take into account economic growth, jobs and exports, as well as environmental effects.

This was to be achieved through changes to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the purpose and principles.

In 2013, when Environment Minister Amy Adams released a consultation document outlining the reform proposals, changes to sections 6 and 7 were included.

However, she was unable to secure a Parliamentary majority for the Bill, as neither United Future nor the Maori Party would support economic development being given the same weight in law as environmental protection.

During the 2014 election, National again campaigned on RMA reform, with rebalancing the Act a priority, and once back in government they wasted no time in pressing ahead.

Environment Minister Nick Smith outlined the details of their planned reforms in a speech, in January 2015, explaining, "I want to get these reforms right and ensure we have got a balance that enables New Zealand to grow and prosper without compromising the great Kiwi lifestyle. But let me equally be plain that tinkering with the RMA won't do."

The Minister stressed the importance of changing Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, so the effects on the environment could be weighed up against the benefits of economic growth and jobs, and he described 10 reform proposals.

With the support of ACT, National had a Parliamentary majority and Nick Smith planned to have his Bill drafted and introduced in the first half of the year, with a view to it being passed into law by Christmas.

However, nine days after the speech was delivered, National's Northland MP Mike Sabin resigned and the party lost the seat to Winston Peters.

As a result, National again needed two extra votes to pass any law through Parliament.

With United Future and the Maori Party still opposed to any overhaul of the RMA that included changes to sections 6 and 7, the reforms again stalled.

That is until November of last year, when Nick Smith made the surprise announcement that he had tabled the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill in Parliament.

The Minister had done a deal with the Maori Party - in return for supporting the Bill to a Select Committee, the crucial changes to sections 6 and 7, which were central to National's reform programme, had been dropped, and instead, new race-based co-governance powers for the Maori elite had been included, requiring democratically-elected councils to seek the approval of unelected tribal representatives in all major decision-making.

Even though many councils have more than a dozen iwi claiming an interest in their areas, each will be entitled to set up their own agreements and be individually consulted.

These agreements will also provide an accelerated pathway for tribal groups to become resource-consenting authorities for fresh water and other natural resources.

Nick Smith's controversial Bill attracted almost 1000 submissions to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.

The concerns raised during public hearings delayed its July report back to Parliament by two months, then another two months, until committee members refused further extensions and the Bill was returned to the House two weeks ago, with no changes at all.

Opposition MPs blamed the Minister's meddling for the shambles.

With a vote needed in Parliament to get the Bill back to the Select Committee, so the work on it could be completed, Nick Smith again approached the Maori Party, and in return for their support, agreed to more concessions - this time to include Mana Whakahono a Rohe in the Bill.

Ngai Tahu had recommended the inclusion of Mana Whakahono a Rohe, saying they would enable iwi to undertake "the handling of resource consent applications, notification decisions, monitoring and enforcement".

This is quite different from the way Dr Smith described their impact.

These new mechanisms that Nick Smith has included in the RMA will enable race-based vested interests to take over resource consenting from democratically-elected councils.

That means hapless property owners will not only be forced to consult with councils, but with multiple iwi as well. Instead of streamlining and simplifying the RMA, Nick Smith is about to make it much worse.

The time has now come for the Prime Minister to exercise some leadership and either put Nick Smith's Bill on hold, or take up New Zealand First's offer for comprehensive RMA reform.

John Key should remove Nick Smith in his January Cabinet reshuffle, since his judgement cannot be trusted.