Rushing through RMA changes undermines local democracy says LGNZ
Lawrence Yule, Local Government NZ president
Some of the Government's proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are welcomed, but a number of the significant proposals could undermine local democracy, potentially impose an unfair financial burden on ratepayers and don't appear to be based on solid evidence, says Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).
LGNZ has lodged a submission on the RMA discussion document Improving our Resource Management System'- released by the Minister for the Environment, Hon Amy Adams, last month.
LGNZ's concerns are endorsed by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) which was commissioned by LGNZ to provide an independent assessment of the discussion document.
Most concerning to local authorities are proposals to undermine local democracy - that's the ability of communities to make their own choices about what's best for them, within the framework of national policies set by the Government, said LGNZ President, Lawrence Yule.
One proposal is that single resource management plans are heard by an independent hearings panel. LGNZ believes the proposal would take power away from democratically-elected representatives. The appointment of an independent hearings panel should remain the choice of the council.
As a second example, Mr Yule said, the Government proposes to specify which plan provisions should be subject to non-notification provisions, instead of that being done through the local planning process. LGNZ says this should be a community decision, typically through council's district or regional plans, unless it is part of a National Environmental Standard covering a specific activity.
There are precious few facts to support many of the proposals. The NZIER report is unequivocal about that. Some of the proposals could result in a substantial increase in costs for ratepayers and fee payers. Relying on anecdotal examples to create policy is of great concern to our sector.
Good policy requires sound understanding of the problems. Policy based on poor analysis generally creates poor law, or results in adverse unintended consequences. Let's take the time to get this right, said LGNZ Regional Sector Chair, Fran Wilde.
While LGNZ is in favour of appropriate costs being met by whoever creates them, some of the Government's proposals seem to have been hurriedly put together with little thought about implementation. This very concern was recently highlighted by the Productivity Commission.
Although these are substantial issues, the discussion document also contains some sensible proposals. These include reviewing the role of the Environment Court in decision-making and considering a technical exemption for some technical and minor rule breaches.
Councils have no desire to be a handbrake on economic development in the way they make their planning decisions, as some critics allege. We are simply asking that business practices are environmentally sustainable. As the bodies that will have to implement any changes, we want to ensure that the proposals make good sense and do actually result in more efficient, effective environmental management.