Farmers of New Zealand has been at the forefront of arguments to change the Resource Management Act. rather than just talk our people have been involved in the writing of Thinkpiece Two a comprehensive review of the RMA in 2003. Since then we have advocated significant changes to improve the working of this legislation. Some of these issues are listed below.

 

1. RMA Ombudsman: A watchdog to review local government process would significantly reduce the current levels of abuse. Some councillors and council staff actively engage in tactics to stop or delay consent processing . We have also a number examples of  unlawful and extortionate 'development fees' being charged for consents to be processed. 

 

2. Department of Conservation: This organisation should be replaced by the Ministry of the Environment as the governments input into plans and consent processing. The Ministry for the Environment needs to monitor territorial authorities to ensure a consistent approach to drafting plans and statements. The Conservation Department have a culture of anti-development due to their role as conservator. They should be restricted to management of Crown Estates and be allowed in RMA processes only when they are Crown Estates are implicated.

 

3. Provision of Infrastructure: Should be treated equally under Section 6 of the Act regarding matters of national importance.

 

4. Decision to Notify: Is being abused by some consultant. Notification means more work and therefore they have an incentive to recommend notification. While notification remains a council decision in reality they are not and there are no democratic checks and balances and the decision to notify should not be made by the consultant that does the substantive recommendation. 

 

5. Use of Private Contractors: Rather than consent individual projects license the contractors who undertake the work to operate within rules. This will remove cost and time constraints. 

 

6. Rural Character: Remove the term 'rural character' from amenity values as this potentially restricts innovative land use. Farms are industrial zones with heavy plant and machinery in operation. Describing rural character as an amenity results in unfair restrictions. We prefer the term 'Rural Industrial' as this accurately describes what it is and will reduce reverse sensitivity issues.

 

7. Combine Plans: The ability to combine the all the district and regional plans into one single planning document with consistent rules and policies would reduce planning cost and create greater certainty to applicants.

 

8. Remove Non-Complying Activity: Remove this as a category under the RMA  as it is not necessary.

 

9. Minister of Conservation: Remove Minister final decision making role in relation to coastal activities. It does not improve decision making and just delays process.

 

10. Environment Court: Allow applicants to request direct referral to the Environment Court with agreement with local authority in large applications. This will reduce cost and save time.

 

11. Ten Year Review: The mandatory requirement to review plans after ten years should be removed. Plans are being updated on a regular basis anyway and removing this requirement will save significant cost.

 

 BACK