This is an overview from the Green Party on the Resource Management Amendment Bill with guidelines on making a submission.
While the Environment Centre does not necessarily agree with or endorse the contents of this overview and guide, we feel it is important that there is public participation in the process and this is a clear introduction to the issues raised by the proposed amendments. Further analysis can be viewed at the Environmental Defence Society's website here.
Please note that the deadline for submissions is Friday 3rd April, which leaves very little time to have your say on this pivotal legislation which could potentially affect the public's ability to have a say in important environmental planning decisions.
Making a submission - a simple guide
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill
Introduction
This Bill shifts the balance of the RMA away from environmental protection and community involvement, and towards unsustainable development. While its intention is to speed up the consent and planning processes, it does this in a way that makes it harder for New Zealanders to have their say and prevent damage to the environment. This is a big step backwards for both the sustainable management of our natural resources, and community participation in decisions that affect us.
Important details
You can have your say on the Bill by sending in a submission. It can be as short or long as you like, but being clear and concise is most effective. If long, include a summary at the beginning, number the paragraphs, and attach any supporting evidence as appendices. Your submission must be received by the Local Government and Environment Committee by Friday 3 April. You need to send two printed copies of your submission to:
Committee Secretariat
Local Government and Environment Committee
Parliament House
Wellington
If you need assistance with writing, copying or submitting, please contact us. If this is your first time making a submission to a select committee, please take the time to read this guide.
Submission format:
1. Give your name, address, phone number and email address
2. State that you WISH TO APPEAR before the select committee to speak to your submission - you can always decline later. If you are not in Wellington, request to be heard in a city nearest you.
3. Give an indication of who you are (e.g. landowner, business owner, community group member, etc). If you represent a group, outline its purpose and how many members it has.
4. Clearly state your OPPOSITION to the Bill.
5. Outline your key concerns about the Bill clearly and concisely using examples.
Key points we recommend you cover
Below are the six most important points that need to be made to the Bill. Details of other concerns, and guides from other organisations, will be available soon here. Please include as many as you can in your submission. Remember to put them in your own words, use examples from your experience, and be quite clear about what you want changed. First, state clearly that you OPPOSE the Bill. While it contains some amendments that are positive, the most significant amendments will be bad for the environment, bad for New Zealand's environmental reputation, and will reduce the democratic right to have a say. And thank you for caring enough about the environment and democracy to submit!
1. Security for costs
The Amendment
The Bill would allow the Environment Court to require a bond be paid before an appeal is heard. However, the Court already has the power to dismiss "frivolous and vexatious" objections in RMA 279, and 33 cases were struck out under 279(4) between 2006 & 2008.
Green Party view
This amendment will reduce participation of people with legitimate causes. A Court demand for a bond will prove an insurmountable cost barrier to many community groups. Developers will use the threat of security for costs to intimidate groups from appealing decisions.
Example
Because of security for costs requirement, a Wellington community group withdrew from appealing a landfill application on odour concerns. Those concerns later became a major problem.
Change Required
Delete clause 133
2. Reduction in public notification
The Amendment
Public participation is a principle of the RMA, hence consents are notified by default except where effects are minor. The Bill will make non-notification the norm.
Green Party view
The Bill will undermine the core principle of public participation despite the majority of consents not needing notification. By making non-notification the norm, fewer consents will be notified resulting in less public say and poorer decisions.
Example
Recently in New Plymouth a 90-apartment hotel (with a public bar) in a residential area was not publicly notified, and only stopped when the developer withdrew for financial reasons.
Change Required
Delete new section 94
3. Removal of Conservation Minister's right to say no
The Amendment
The Minister of Conservation has authority on behalf of the ‘owner' of the coast, the public, and therefore makes decisions on restricted activities like sewage discharges or marinas. The Bill removes this power, leaving Regional Councils as the sole decision-maker on coastal activities.
Green Party view
The public & conservation interest is represented by the Minister. Regional Councils should not have complete control over coastal activity, esp. contentious issues like sewage & marinas. Improvements are required to the process, but this amendment is not the answer.
Example
In Whangamata, the Minister decided to stop a marina in order to protect the public and conservation interest. Unfortunately, this decision was overturned and a native-forested estuary with endangered skinks will become a private marina.
Change Required
Delete clause 20
4. Restrictions on Appealing Plans
The Amendment
The Bill restricts the right to appeal a Council Plan decision to only points of law. Appeals on broader grounds can only be taken with the leave of the Environment Court.
Green Party view
This reduces public participation - a core principle of the RMA. A party cannot appeal on substantial matters without going through a Court hearing to get leave. Plans will be poorer because of it, and the environment will suffer. This may also clog the Court with leave applications, and slow down Council planning processes.
Example
This year, after an appeal against the Waitakere Council plan, the Environment Court reduced the number of subdivisions in the Waitakere Ranges. The appellants may have been prevented from taking this case under the amendments.
Change Required
Delete clauses 132 & 136
5. Removal of "non-complying" category
The Amendment
The RMA categorises planned activities. The Bill removes the ‘Non-complying' category, which is for activities that require a higher standard than control or discretion, but are not prohibited. After 3 years all ‘non-complying' activities not yet re-categorised will default to weaker protection.
Green Party view
Defaulting to discretionary lowers the environmental bar, but ‘prohibited' may be too harsh. Non-complying fills this gap. The change is unnecessary, and will result in onerous plan changes costing time and money. Removing it complicates rather than simplifies, so is contrary to the intention of the Act.
Example
The ‘non-complying' category was important in the Waikato Regional Plan to control nitrogen leaching farm activities. Some activities did not fit rules in other categories.
Change Required
Delete clauses 147 & 152
6. Remove public interest group power to join case
The Amendment
The Bill removes the ability of community groups representing the public interest to become party to an appeal if they were not a submitter.
Green Party view
Community groups have limited resources and sometimes struggle to submit on everything. At times they will have good grounds for joining an appeal by another group.
Example
Reputable public interest groups like Forest & Bird at times use this ability to join a case. It is important that their expertise and public interest is represented.
Change Required
Delete clause 131
Comments