In March, the Government’s Expert Advisory Group (EAG) released its recommendations for a new resource management system. The release included a table with Cabinet’s high-level responses.

“EDS has added to the table, so it now shows the key recommendations of the EAG, Cabinet’s decisions on them, and EDS’s position, colour-coded to reflect our assessment of the risk to the environment,” said EDS RM Reform Director Dr Greg Severinsen.

“Some of the recommendations are likely to improve the existing system. For example, it’s positive to see a commitment to the need for clear environmental limits, not just a system that continually balances development with environment – although a lot will depend on their scope and detailed design. It’s also positive to see spatial planning or constraints mapping feature as a tool for signalling where development should proceed and where it should not.

“Many proposed changes to the mechanics of the system also look good. There are measures to make planning simpler and faster (including a national e-planning portal), and for fewer and more consistent plans. Stronger compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions look promising too.

“However, the EAG’s recommendations and related Cabinet decisions reveal considerable risks to the environment. Fundamental changes will be needed in some key areas to make the new laws acceptable.

“For example, a system that’s limited to managing just the ‘externalities’ of land uses would fail to address some of the most pressing resource management issues we face, like restoring degraded environments, or creating well-functioning urban environments. We strongly disagree that the central purpose of land use law is ‘the need to protect a person’s use and enjoyment of their land’.

“Further, a broad framework for regulatory takings, where controls more stringent than national standards would trigger a presumption of compensation, would disincentive local environmental protections even when required to protect a threatened species. This is an especially egregious concept that needs to be dumped.

“There are other risks that could be minimised through careful legislative design. For example, splitting the RMA into two statutes for ‘planning’ and ‘environment’, while not a great idea, could be made to work if both Acts are properly integrated. If they aren’t, we could see extremely concerning outcomes like environmental protections being made subservient to development or excluded from land-use decisions. There’s still a lot of confusion about how the two statutes would work.

“Our table identifies several other risks, including that a new permissive regime could unfold without first identifying high value areas deserving of protection, and in the absence of an independent regulator to ensure evidence based limit-setting and appropriate checks in the system.

“Overall, while we agree the RMA requires reform, there are elements here that could steer us completely in the wrong direction. If the Fast-track Approvals Act is any indication of where we are heading, there are good reasons to be seriously concerned. Replacing the RMA needs careful, thoughtful, nuanced thinking and we have seen little of that for the fast-track process.

“The speed of policy development is another concern: fast law is often bad law. What we don’t need is another round of repeal and replacement when the government changes, but that will be the likely outcome if this isn’t done right.

“EDS will continue to engage in good faith as detailed policy development continues at pace,” concluded Dr Severinsen.