The Resource Management Act is much like a Bactrian camel: the horse made by a committee. What started out as an ass has morphed into a poor-tempered, spitting, uncomfortable to ride double-humped monstrosity.
The Resource Management Act 1991 has been ‘reformed’, altered and added to in Frankensteinian manner: 900 pages long with 18 subsequent additions by both sides of the House:
ACT have done well to shift the political landscape on the Resource Management Act, being the only party and David Seymour the only MP to advocate repealing and replacing the Act in 2014. In the 2020 election, ACT, Labour and National all advocated repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act.
In passing the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017, National initially required the Maori Party’s two votes to pass the reform package because ACT’s single vote was not enough without the support of United Future’s Peter Dunne. Eventually, ACT was able to cut a deal with United Future to provide the numbers proposing a meaningful reform of the law; however, National put politics above… ummm…. National put politics first by agreeing to the Maori Party’s demands for greater Maori input into resource use with an eye to coalition partners post the 2017 election. It was laughable watching National MPs campaign on reforming the Resource Management Act during the 2017 election, having blocked such reform during the previous term.
An independent review panel recommended repealing the RMA and starting again in July 2020. Unfortunately, they also recommended replacing the law with three new laws; which appears counterintuitive to anyone who wants genuine reform.
- The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) will provide for land use and environmental regulation as the primary replacement for the RMA.
- The Strategic Planning Act (SPA) will integrate with other legislation relevant to development, and require long-term regional planning strategies
- The Climate Change Adaption Act (CAA) will address issues associated with managing retreat – the movement of people away from climate risks – and funding and financing adaptation. This legislation will be the responsibility of Climate Change Minister James Shaw.
ACT’s Environment and Local Government spokesman Simon Court describes the Government’s proposal as a three-headed hydra that “essentially cut and paste the worst elements of the RMA into three new pieces of legislation.”
ACT campaigned on replacing the Resource Management Act with legislation for urban areas and separate legislation for rural areas or significant environmental regions. The proposed NBA does not make this differentiation and will need to be repealed and replaced once Labour loses an election.
The RMA review also determined clauses referencing the Treaty were too weak and Environment Minister David Parker has confirmed the Government is still working through the details in regards to strengthening ‘Treaty principles’ in the legislation.
It would appear the RMA is simply going to be euthanised, then reincarnated with greater powers for tribal authorities. New Zealanders who advocated for RMA reform and celebrated the consensus on doing so during the previous election may now regret its adoption by the Labour party.