The important question with respect to the Government's intentions to reform the Resource Management Act is whether, in fact, a loosening of the reins will contribute to further degradation of the natural environment.
The Government claims that its intention is to cut through red tape delaying projects, without compromising environmental protections.
The two goals seem oppositional, but an initial study of the parliamentary select committee's report on the first phase of legislative change leaves an impression of providing reasonable protections for continued public participation in efforts to restrain "growth" at any price.
Some 167 changes the Government promised to make to the Act will in large part continue, though there have been some amendments and reversals to the more draconian ideas.
One such was an intent to restrict appeals to the Environment Court about district plan changes, but this has been discarded. And local councils will continue to be able to reject development plans which are judged to have more than minor impact on the environment.
However, efforts by some submitters to challenge the intent to remove tree protection measures in district plans have been rejected.
Of greater significance has been the way the committee has dealt with the proposals to further "fast-track" major projects, and in this regard the proposed Bill contains few changes: the mechanisms for speeding developments considered to be of national importance remain, and the range of them has been broadened and now include a proviso for a "network utility operation" - new power lines or roads, for example - extended to more than one district or region.
Thus the extended so-called "call-in" powers will effectively give the cabinet of the day the power to bypass or shorten the public participation process when projects deemed to be of national - and political - importance are considered.
These can now include roads and new power lines, but the amendments also include a clause which is a charter for other controversial utilities, such as new prisons, if they "will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security, or safety obligations or functions ".
There are provisions to speed resource consent applications and remove opportunities for trade competitors to delay or interfere with process, and limitations on the seemingly endless opportunities to delay district plan changes.
There are many other amendments of a technical and substantially minor nature, but the Bill will still proceed to effect the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency although precisely what its scope, functions and structure will be, other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance, will have to await a second amended Bill.
The power of the Environment Court to require appellants to put up security for costs in appeals has been restored - a feature that will be viewed by many as potentially onerous and restrictive of public objection, although the record of the court is that it enforced this requirement only rarely.
Also of concern is how the committee has not really dealt with relevance in the public interest - such as an objector, for example, resident in Otago opposed on principle to the damming of the Hurunui River in North Canterbury - although it claims it "would be concerned" if the amended Act did not "adequately protect the public interest" or resulted "in the exclusion of anyone with an interest that is greater than the public interest generally." In fact the committee appears to have left the issue reliant on case law and the courts.
The second phase of legislation is, according to the Government, to deal with greater central government direction of local authorities to improve the management of aquaculture, infrastructure, urban design and water quality and services; align the revised Act with the Building Act, the Historic Places Act, and new conservation and forests legislation, as well as other matters considered "too complex" to be included in the first phase.
This is an unsatisfactory and costly way of causing major reforms to a vital piece of legislation whose broad political purpose, if achieved, will potentially further undermine the protection of the natural environment, but the select committee process in dealing with the first phase has at least demonstrated that the public's voice has been heard and, in large part, given fair consideration.
