|
RE: Resource Management Act Review
1. Background to IPENZ
The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) is
a membership-based organisation representing 8,000 professional engineers
of all disciplines. Its Members work in a wide range of sectors including
consultancy, construction, industry, local authorities and utilities
and have various levels of involvement with the Resource Management
Act.
IPENZ is non-aligned and seeks to contribute to the community in
matters of national interest giving a learned view on important issues,
independent of any commercial interest.
2. Submission
IPENZ supports the fundamental principle of sustainable management
that underpins the Resource Management Act. We agree that there are
a number of areas relating to implementation of the legislation and
the legislation itself that require review and welcome this opportunity
to provide input into the review process.
2.1 Achieving the right balance of national and local interests
We submit that there are a number of issues associated with attempting
to achieve the right balance of national and local interests.
2.1.1 Definition of national importance
The importance of economic growth and particularly the role of infrastructure
in achieving growth should be recognised in the Resource Management
Act, while at the same time not compromising good environmental outcomes.
Section 6 requires decision-makers to recognise and provide for
matters of national importance. These currently include predominately
environmental considerations and the relationship of Maori with their
ancestral lands and other taonga. While sustainable management is
defined as managing the use, development, and protection of natural
and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people
to and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural
well-being, we submit that insufficient consideration is given to
social and economic factors and other factors of national importance
such as energy infrastructure and transport, in the decision-making
process.
A suggested solution is the inclusion of economic factors and infrastructure
as matters to be recognised and provided for in section 6 of the Act.
2.1.2 Managing national benefit and local environmental impact
We agree that local authorities are increasingly being asked to consider
projects that raise issues of national significance with little guidance
as to how this should be approached.
There are a number of existing mechanisms within the Act that could
be extended to provide greater guidance to local authorities and improved
certainty of process for projects with national significance.
Making better use of National Policy Statements, National Environment
Standards and guidelines would provide improved guidance to decision-makers
on issues that require management from a national perspective. This
would also assist in achieving greater consistency between local authorities
in reaching their decisions.
Further developing the call in provisions of the Act may also provide
an effective mechanism for achieving the right balance between national
and local interests. Where a project may be in the national interest,
applicants could apply or local authorities could refer applications,
to a national authority. The national authority, whether the Environment
Court, the Minister or an independent board, could decide whether
to hear the application either if a particular activity has been designated
in the national interest through a National Policy Statement or where
it meets particular criteria detailed in legislation. If the authority
reaches the conclusion that the project is of national significance
it could then determine where the balance lies. The process would
include public consultation and representation of local and/or regional
interests.
This would ensure the consideration of both national and local interests
and allow a fair and objective decision to be made within the purpose
and objectives of the legislation.
This process could also be extended to projects that cross regional
boundaries. However improvements in the consent-making process, including
the promotion of best practice and greater consistency between local
authorities may be sufficient to remedy problems encountered by such
applications.
2.2 Improving the design and process for local policy formulation
We submit that the design and process for local policy formulation
could be improved through a combination of best practice guidelines
and greater knowledge sharing by local authorities. This may be facilitated
centrally and assisted by the provision of knowledge-sharing resources
such as the Quality Planning website. Where uncertainty still exists
as to the interpretation of legislation, central government should
resolve or arrange clarification.
2.3 Improving the consent-making process
Our Members have observed that the consideration of alternatives
and consultation requirements are not criticised by sophisticated
project proponents as they know how to accomplish both and appreciate
the value of the process. However the recent Environment Court decision
regarding the Tongariro Power development illustrates that the consultation
process can be problematic especially where affected parties are unwilling
or unable to participate in the process but continue to object. We
submit that greater clarification of responsibilities and time frames
for consultation and the consent process are required.
The lack of consistency between local authorities and lack of clarity
and certainty for applicants may be in part remedied by the implementation
of best practice guidelines and measures to improve capacity within
local authorities. Increased transparency in consent processing may
also assist.
Suggestion has also been made to us that local authorities would
benefit from engaging professional advisers at an earlier stage in
the consent process rather than only once the Environment Court becomes
involved.
Our Members have also observed that there is a lay perception that
experts in consent proceedings are biased and not truly independent
of the applicant. A possible solution may be increased local authority
management of the engagement process for experts.
We also agree that there needs to be some deterrent to vexatious
objectors or those who object with a view to personal gain, however
a balance must be maintained between discouraging this type of behaviour
and ensuring those who are genuinely affected by the proposal have
the opportunity to be heard, a balance difficult to achieve through
legislation alone.
2.4 Allocation of natural resources (water, air or geothermal)
We recognise that methods of allocating natural resources is an increasingly
important issue. With escalating demands on energy sources in New
Zealand, providing a framework for managing competing claims on natural
resources such as geothermal and water is imperative. In order to
ensure the environmental, social and economic well-being of New Zealand,
the mechanism for allocation, whether a tradable rights system, central
determination or other will need to provide a level of certainty to
ensure an environment conducive to investment. We urge the government
to give priority to addressing this issue.
2.5 Supporting measures for building capacity and promoting
best practice and implementation
We support the Ministry’s suggestion of some form of performance
measurement system for local authorities, however we believe best
practice and implementation could be further promoted by the distribution
of best practice guidelines and seconding staff from local authorities
that perform well, to facilitate knowledge and skill transfer. We
also endorse local authority accreditation and note that local authorities
are required to gain accreditation for their building consent procedures
under the proposed building legislation, this may provide a useful
framework for an accreditation process under the RMA.
3 Conclusion
IPENZ is supportive of this review initiative and we endorse the
conclusion that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally sound.
We submit that a number of concerns identified in the review can be
addressed by greater use and limited modification of existing tools
under the Act. Investment by central government in providing best
practice guidelines, facilitating knowledge sharing between local
authorities and providing clarification on problematic issues would
go some way to improving how the Act operates in practice. However
we submit that other areas of concern such as achieving the right
balance of local and national interests and the allocation of natural
resources will require a greater level of intervention.
For further information please contact:
John Gardiner
Deputy Chief Executive
(04) 474 8932
jgardiner@ipenz.org.nz
|