Proposed changes to the RMA 2013 Clare Lenihan Barrister Presented as part of a panel, Invercargill March 2013

Major changes (as per proposal) Greater National consistency and guidance; Fewer resource management plans; An effective and efficient consenting system;

Greater National consistency and guidance - issues Proposal to combine ss6 and 7 Currently hierarchical s 6 matters of national importance – shall recognise and provide for s7 other matters – shall have particular regard to Addition of several matters and deletion of others Combine them all into s6 Principles “recognise and provide for”

Greater National consistency and guidance - issues Add “effective functioning of the built environment and urban expansion” “efficient provision of infrastructure” and “managing risks of natural hazards” S6 now “In making overall broad judgment…” Is current approach of Courts Now only have to consider “specified” outstanding natural features and landscapes and “specified” areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna

Changes to current s6 …the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (b) the protection of specified outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (c) the protection of areas of specified significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: (d) the value (maintenance and enhancement) of public access to and along the coastal marine area, wetlands, lakes, and rivers: (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga: (f) the importance and value (protection of) historic heritage (from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development): (g) the protection of protected customary rights

Changes to s7 In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to— (a) kaitiakitanga: (aa) (the ethic of stewardship): (b) the benefits of the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: (ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy: (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems: (e) [Repealed] (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: (h) (the protection of the ) areas of significant aquatic habitats, including (habitat of )trout and salmon: (i) the impacts (effects) of climate change: (j) the benefits of efficient energy use (to be derived from the use and development of) and renewable energy generation.

New section 7 Process oriented – timely, efficient etc. Have regard to any voluntary form of environmental compensation, off setting or similar measure not encompassed by s5(2)(c) – intent not clear. Should only be considered after requirement to ARM adverse effects Achieve an “appropriate”? balance between public and private interests in the use of land

Fewer resource management plans One plan for each Council, consistent with national template – standardised terms and definitions, content for specific standardised zones and rules of particular activities Councils can combine plans e.g. region wide Different process for combined plan Collaborative vs. adversarial approach early on – greater emphasis on pre-notification engagement and collaboration Independent hearing panel – oversee formal consultation and submission process, mediate and resolve issues and make recommendations on submissions to Councils

Fewer resource management plans “Encouragement” to use this process is limited appeal rights to E.Ct – only if Council not accept IHP recommendations. If do accept, appeal to High Court only on a point of law Also, if do go to E.Ct then no longer “de novo” – afresh – only rehearing of original Could rehear evidence “when appropriate”? Limits on new evidence (esp., if available at time)

Consents Limited notification -regulations direct non- notification nation-wide for some activity types Limited submission scope of participation in submissions and appeals to reasons why application notified and effects that led to notification Consent appeals could be narrowed as for plan appeals? Rehearing only