2013 Submission Resource Management Act

Publications & Resources

2 April 2013

Ministry for the Environment - RM Reform

PO Box 10362

WELLINGTON 6143

Improving our resource management system: a discussion document

The Trustees of PSGR express our concern that the time period given for submissions is inappropriately short for a review of such critical legislation as the Resource Management Act (RMA), legislation that will structure the means by which we safeguard the public interest and the environment of New Zealand.

We request that government reset the time frame for the close of submissions, making it at least three months after an education programme has been run for the benefit of the public about the review and to encourage input from the public and from local bodies.

Such a short time frame, added to a lack of education and public consultation prior to opening submissions is a denial of the spirit of the Select Committee process which seeks to give the public an opportunity to contribute to key legislation which affects them.

PSGR wished to seek an independent legal opinion to ensure a valid and encompassing submission, but the time pressure precluded our being able to do so.

PSGR maintains the RMA is the basis of how New Zealanders look after the environment, flora and fauna of our country, and protect our communities.

We maintain that the Government discussion document, Improving our resource management system, proposes substantive changes to the RMA that could be seen to reduce public input and opinion and best interest, on matters relevant to local conditions, areas, councils and communities, and to allow what verges on autocratic rather than democratic decision-making.

Many components of the proposed changes to the RMA weaken this country’s environmental protection laws and restrict the ability of councils and communities to participate in issues affecting their own place of residence and the use of their own natural resources.

The changes suggest Government opposes sustainability and local democracy, virtual icons in New Zealand culture.

The proposed fast decisions suggest the potential for unsound decisions which do not involve public input or safeguard the environment. PSGR does not agree cultural or values changes justify such major changes to sustainable management, or that sustainable management cannot be achieved with the present system.

PSGR opposes:

1 The RMA becoming an Act to promote economic development by rewriting the law on what protects and how we protect New Zealand and New Zealanders.

2 Increasing the Minister for the Environment’s powers and allowing the Minister to direct that some nationally important issues should be decided by a Crown agency; e.g. new oil and gas exploration, or coal mining.

It is imperative that a local council and its community who will be most affected by these decisions, or other interested parties to be most affected by these decisions, should have input into the decision-making process.

The proposed changes to the power structure would give the Minister for the Environment power to insert provisions directly into council plans with no consultation. This denies councils the democratic right to make its own decisions and denies its community the right to involvement on issues of local significance and importance and potential adverse effects.

3 The proposed limits on the right to make submissions. An appropriate public consultation and decision-making process promotes better-informed decisions that meet the best interests of communities.

4 The proposed limits on appeal rights and reduction in the safety net of the Environment Court’s role. The Court’s independence and oversight is a crucial check on the quality and legality of decisions, ensuring those decisions meet the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders.

5 The proposed changes to the RMA would not improve New Zealand’s ability to meet the environmental principles of stewardship (see 8 below). Indeed the proposed changes would adversely affect sustainable management and sustainability, and would deny input by local councils and local communities.

6 Clause 131-joining appeals, section 274 suggests excluding trade competitors and will also exclude genuine community groups. The ability to join appeals brought by other participants has been a valuable safeguard of democracy for not-for-profit voluntary parties working for the betterment of the environment and communities, but for whom RMA matters are unfamiliar. PSGR is not convinced the Attorney-General will be sufficiently proactive to defend the public best interest if community groups are excluded.

7 The amendments to sections 93 and 94 of the RMA. These are less complex than in the proposed bill, but the changed wording creates uncertainty.

PSGR supports:

8 The environmental principles of stewardship of our resources and environment, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the New Zealand environment and upholding the intrinsic values and integrity of our ecosystems.

9 Maintaining conditions on resource consents that relate to all environmental effects.

10 Simplifying and streamlining the RMA providing it can be achieved without compromise to its fundamental purpose of protecting the environment, and the rights of people and communities to have input in planning decisions as with any functioning democracy.

11 A standard structure for resource management plans and definitions of commonly used terms.

12 Valid appeals being allowed to proceed as a democratic process without direct referral to the Environment Court which would mean appellants do not get a hearing at council level.

PSGR acknowledges there are improvements in the bill over the RMA. However, we feel the bill will not make the consenting process easier or faster, or apply more to the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders. We believe many of its components will weaken New Zealand's environmental protection laws, restrict council and community participation in their residence environs and use of their own natural resources, and promote easier access for large companies taking advantage of our brand New Zealand. Thus we oppose the bill.

The Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility

Ends

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.