RMLA Submission on the Resource Management (Consenting and other System Changes) Amendment Bill
This Submission is made by the Association for Resource Management Practitioners / Te Kahui Ture Taiao (RMLA) in relation to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill.
Overall comment on the Bill
The Bill includes a number of targeted changes to the RMA that the Government considers will make important changes in the short term. While there is support within RMLA members for a number of the changes proposed in the Bill (for example the new compliance, monitoring and enforcement provisions), members raised particular concerns with the following changes:
a. The proposed replacement section 100 (clause 34) which significantly changes the default position in relation to council’s obligations to hold a hearing and removes the ability for an applicant or submitter to request a hearing, instead stating that a consent authority must not hold a hearing where it determines that it has “sufficient information”. This test raises concerns which are outlined further below.
b. The relationship between the proposed changes to the RMA and the signalled, but not yet introduced, changes to national direction. This includes the further changes to the National Policy Statement for Urban Development which has been defined in the Bill as a “revised NPS-UD”. The implications of the changes in the Bill cannot be properly or fully assessed where the details of the “revised NPS-UD” are currently unknown. This concern also applies in relation to proposed changes to natural hazards and freshwater matters, where changes have also been signalled to existing national direction and the creation of new direction.
10. The supporting information for the Bill records that the quality of supporting analysis has been constrained for a variety of reasons including time. RMLA notes concern that the usual robust and full processes provided for in the cabinet guide and associated cabinet guidance have not been followed for the proposed amendments.
11. RMLA also considers it unhelpful that the Select Committee submission period fell over the Christmas break. Due to the timing, the matters raised in this submission are not necessarily comprehensive but reflect the feedback received in the time available.
12. This submission addresses matters arising following the proposed changes by theme (as summarised in the Explanatory Note to the Bill):
a. Infrastructure and energy (paragraphs 20 to 23);
b. Housing (paragraphs 24 to 38);
c. Farming and primary sector (paragraphs 39 to 51);
d. Emergencies and natural hazards (paragraphs 52 to 58);
e. Consenting (paragraphs 59 to 66);
f. Enforcement and other matters (paragraphs 67 to 80).
13. Attached as Appendix A is a list of RMLA’s proposed amendments in a table form.
14. We take the opportunity here to reiterate concerns about the number of ad hoc amendments being proposed to the existing resource management framework, the impact of numerous changes that require implementation, the volume of requests for input or feedback, and the short timeframes for responses. This is particularly the case with this Bill where changes are proposed to the RMA alongside signalled (but not yet introduced) changes to national direction documents. This approach does not promote good resource management practice.
15. RMLA remains concerned that the RMA continues to be "tinkered with" and questions whether the proposed solution will have the desired effect, particularly where further and significant reform to the RMA itself is also proposed in the short term. RMLA has previously expressed concern that the speed with which amendments are being made may well exacerbate rather than ameliorate the perceived issues. This approach is highly unlikely to provide the required certainty to the public and councils. RMLA seeks enduring and cross-party solutions.