Government’s RMA reforms too complex and ‘erodes democracy’, councils say

Local leaders in Canterbury have raised “serious concerns” about the Government’s plans to overhaul the Resource Management Act, with one mayor fearing it could become like the contentious Three Waters reforms.

In November, the Government revealed three new laws would replace the Resource Management Act (RMA), the law that currently governs the country’s built environments.

It could take 10 years before these new laws are fully in place.

Environment Minister David Parker said at the time the RMA was “broken” and the Government’s “overdue” overhaul would speed up the consent process, reduce costs, and better protect the environment.

READ MORE:
* ACT leader David Seymour calls for more nurses and the scrapping of resource management law to support home owners
* How our planning has failed to address climate change resilience
* Plan forcing developers to pay for affordable housing met with overwhelming opposition
* Forestry company cleared of Resource Management Act breaches

The overhaul also proposes increased centralisation, with more than 100 plans around the country being shrunk to just 15.

But Canterbury councils have hit out at the proposed overhaul in submissions they are filing on the new bills, two of which have been introduced in Parliament.

Christchurch City Council said the Government’s proposed overhaul would limit local voices, lead to additional complexity, and further strain its coffers.

Selwyn District Council said it contains unnecessary complexity and “erodes democracy”.

Regional council Environment Canterbury said the overhaul could simply fail because of “tight legislative deadlines” which leave no room to test and refine the new policy.

Canterbury’s Mayoral Forum said they had serious concerns about “the lack of public participation”.

Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger said there was no doubt the RMA needed to be sharpened up and made simpler, “but replacing it with three new laws doesn’t do that”.

He said the reforms could head down the same contentious path of Three Waters, “if we’re not careful”.

According to the Government, its RMA overhaul would lead to a 19% reduction in costs a year, which would add up to a saving of about $10 billion over 30 years.

But councils believe the new system lumps more costs onto them.

Both Selwyn and Christchurch councils highlighted that local authorities nationwide would have to shoulder a $350 million establishment cost for the new system.

The councils also said with the new system, their ongoing costs would increase by about 11% compared to the status quo.

Selwyn District Council said the proposal represented “the continued passing of unfunded mandates from Central Government to local government”.

Christchurch City Council said it was “unreasonable” for ratepayers to absorb such significant costs.

Limiting local voices was another major concern highlighted by Canterbury councils.

The new proposal would create a regional planning committee to make a region-wide development plans, but Christchurch City Council said this governance structure would not allow councils to “meaningfully influence plan-making”.

Selwyn District Council said the proposal “erodes democracy” because local communities would fund the plan-making, but decision makers had no accountability back to those communities.

The Canterbury Mayoral Forum said in a draft submission the Government proposal had not retained local democratic input.

“To constrain people’s involvement in consenting processes that affect their property, limits their rights over something which has very high importance,” the forum’s draft submission said.

Christchurch City Council also feared the proposed overhaul would allow for political interference.

It said the proposal would allow the Government to direct a regional planning committee to amend a region-wide development plan, which would give the Government of the day a chance to direct changes for political gain.

The council wanted this power given to an independent authority, such as the Environment Court, instead.

“This approach would ensure planning decisions are based on evidence and good practice as opposed to being politically motivated, or a result of lobbying”.