Despite only a few days' notice, about 100 people
turned up to a public meeting in Dunedin yesterday on the
Government's Resource Management Act reforms, surprising
officials with their level of interest. The meeting was the
first of 50 to be held across the country over the next few
weeks as part of a five-week public consultation on the
proposed reforms.
The meeting schedule was only notified last Wednesday, but
that did not stop people attending and making their feelings
known on both the consultation process and the proposed
reforms.
Many expressed disappointment the Minister for the
Environment Amy Adams did not attend the meeting - she had a
cabinet meeting instead - to answer questions about the
reforms.
Reforms proposed range from changing the purpose of the Act
to give greater weight to economic development over
environmental considerations; giving new controls to central
government, including the ability to take individual consent
decisions off local councils and place then with a new
national body, and insert new provisions in local council
plans without consultation; reducing the Environment Court to
hearing cases only on points of law rather than additional
evidence; bringing all planning documents, regional and
district, into a single resource management plan for each
area; and making non-notification a standard for some
activity types, such as mining and mineral exploration.
About 20 people asked the panel - National Party list MP
Aaron Gilmore, Ministry for the Environment deputy policy
secretary Guy Beatson and Libby Masterton, also from the
Ministry for the Environment - questions ranging from queries
about changes to specific sections (including why
clauses such as the maintenance and enhancement of amenity
values are proposed to be dropped) to who decided the
community's values had changed so much the Act needed
reviewing; issues around public access; having to go through
a round of interpretation through Environment Court all over
again; time frames for consultation and decision-making;
political imperatives; the availability of the document;
whether decision making would be local or national; planning
processes; costs; and the impact on housing affordability.
Mr Gilmore said he wanted to make it clear the consultation
process was just that. The Government had a genuine desire to
seek people's views and opinions on the proposals.
The consultation time frame was tight, but there was no set
time frame on getting the legislation through Parliament, and
this was the first stage of a long process. People would also
have other opportunities to comment, for example, at the
select committee stage.
''There is a desire and willingness to put changes in place,
but we are not going to run a bull at the gate just to get
changes through. If you genuinely don't agree with our
opinion, submit, '' Mr Gilmore saidMr Beatson said the
Government wanted to address the hard issues ''right up
front'' through the consultation process, so those issues did
not end up being fought out through the Environment Court, he
said.
The proposals were on the ministry website. Submissions
closed on April 2, he said.
debbie.porteous@odt.co.nz
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.