Although there is a wide agreement that RMA needs to be fixed, there is a growing waste over what its replacement will prioritize – and who it will leave out.
Since 1991, the Resource Management Law has sustained as Protection and we use when. It has been the cool backbone of everything, from subdivisions to sewage schemes – designed to promote “sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. He brought together advice, scientists, developers, communities and mana when weighing decisions using the best evidence available.
It was not perfect. But for over three decades, it has given us a shared structure to balance development with Kaitiakitanga Environmental.
According to the Resource Management Law (RMA), most resource management decisions are made by local councils, guided by regional and district plans that reflect the national direction and community values. If a proposed activity – such as a new subdivision, farm expansion or wastewater discharge – may affect the environment, resource consent is required. These consent are evaluated in relation to environmental standards, Mātaurama Maori, local plans and the potential impact on Tangata when you and the community in general. Mana When may be involved as affected parts, subjected or in joint management functions.
Although far from perfect in practice, this system provides a nice way for environmental and cultural concerns to be heard – and sometimes acted – before irreversible damage is caused.
At the time of the 2023 elections, it was clear that the days of the act were numbered. The work had just passed two laws – the natural and built environment law and the space planning law – based on the years of consultation and the 2020 Randerson Review. But national, act and new York first campaign By eliminating these reforms and starting over.
In its first 100 days, the government of the coalition fulfilled this promise. The replacement laws were revokedA new advisory group was formed and rhetoric increased: fewer consent, faster projects and ““ “restoration”Of property rights.
What we’ve heard since then has been light on the details, but heavy on ideology. The Minister of Reform of the Resource Management Law (RMA), Chris Bishop promised A “radical” review that cuts the bureaucracy and prioritizes the enjoyment of private property. Many of the tools he mentioned – such as space planning and environmental limits – are already part of the system. But there are some new elements, such as a national compliance regulator, general zoning rules and a proposed compensation scheme for landowners who lose value through regulation.
And then there is the exclusion of the treaty clause.
This was not a recommendation from the expert group. It did not come from the continuous review of Winston Peters of Treated Clauses in 27 other laws. Came straight from Cabinet.
The Minister of Development of Maori, Tama Potaka, temporarily forgotten This detail, when requested – forcing the bishop to clarify: “I don’t know what’s in Tama’s head,” he said before claim That the generic clauses of the treaty create “more cool risk”.
So far, there has been no explanation of what exactly this risk is – or why I take it, a constitutional basis of this country, is being surgically removed from environmental law.
At the conference of the New Zealand Planning Institute in Waihōpai, on March 28, Simon Court, the minister’s Undersecretary who oversees the reforms, accused The decision makers of the “regulatory anxiety” RMA-a supposed culture of caution, complexity and delay. The coalition solution? Simplify the system. Reduce what planners and advice are required to do. And in his words, “close the doors for people with worries.”
This is not a reform. This is exclusion.
Federated farmers are thrilled. They have applauded The idea that advice can be forced to compensate for land owners for environmental protections, reformulating land and water as private goods first.
Local Government New Zealand is cautiously support of simpler consent and stronger central direction – since communities still receive voice.
Others are much more direct.
Rachel Arnott, Ngāti Ruanui Kaiwhakahaere, it says “This government has an ideological and political commitment to name the rights guaranteed by Tiriti de Iwi, Hapū and Whmen.”
Graham Young, also from Ngāti Ruanui, calls It is an effort to “step on the main protections for the benefit of big business.”
Green MP Lan Pham, Party RMA Door, warn The country is on its way to “giving our most precious waterways to industry to make money.”
And all this is happening like ours Environmental Bulletin It gets more terrible. Nitrates in groundwater are increasing, soil erosion is increasing and climate change pressures are intensifying.
The government has promised Two new bills to replace RMA: a planning law and a natural environmental law. They are expected before the end of 2025 and will probably be hurried before the next election.
And while there is a wide agreement that RMA needs to be fixed, there is a growing waste over what this new structure will prioritize – and who it will leave out.
As a parliamentary commissioner for the environment Simon Upton warned When labor reforms were revoked, “Environmental Management Law that flip-flops after all general elections will not be good for our economy or our environment. ”
If you spent time in resource management, you will know that even the most basic protections for Taiao are won with a lot of effort. Last year:
- Hapū disputed To prevent the houses from being built in Wāhi Tapu in ōnoke, Whangārei.
- A mass tuna to kill In Mataura, he led to a rare sentence of responsibility.
- An accelerated recovery in the port of Whangārei is court Hapū out of a -chasa stretch of the coast.
In each case, those who resist the damage were not doing this for profit. They were doing this to Whakapapa, to when, for future generations.
And despite the rhetoric, less than 1% of resource consent requests are refused. So much for a “culture of no”.
This new direction suggests something different: a system designed to serve those that are overloaded – not by pollution or loss, but by inconvenience. A system that favors profit on protection. This sees the values of the community, Mātauranga Maori and Te Tiriti are not so essential, but as obstacles.
Based on what we have seen, the guiding principle of this reform can also be: “Let the extraction proceed, imprisoned by the recommended practice, local opposition or anything that makes the otearoa unique.”
But we can still demand better.
There is a chance that this work in care, in evidence, in equity. Build a future -oriented system that I reminded the injustices of the past and protects what remains. This honors you. This takes care of our Mokopuna and your Mokopuna-in an uncertain world of climate.
This is what true reform should do.
