The big reveal on Tuesday had RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop touting a cost-benefit analysis estimate there would be $13.3 billion in savings over 30 years through reduced administrative and compliance costs.
The changes, we are told, will make it easier to build the homes and infrastructure we need, give farmers and growers the freedom to get on with producing world-class food and fibre, and strengthen our primary sector while protecting the environment.
As the government pointed out, the existing law had environmental shortcomings with many environmental indicators worsening since its introduction. Whether the reforms will have the capacity to turn that around is questionable.
The changes will introduce two new laws to replace the RMA, the Planning Bill relating to how land can be used and developed including for housing, and the Natural Environment Bill outlining rules for managing the use of natural resources and protecting the environment.
While there was much hyperbole from the government about this being a once-in-a-generation reform, several commentators have pointed out the broad thrust of the changes is similar to those Labour introduced last term and which this government was quick to repeal, returning the country to the much-maligned RMA.
These Bills are not expected to be passed until the end of next year and the law fully operational by 2029.
The timing of the Bills’ introduction is not ideal for those who will have to pore over the around 750 pages in the combined documents in what would have been their summer break. All the same, there has been some cautious support for the general direction of the Bills, particularly the streamlining of planning.
However, there is much still to be learned about how more than 100 policy statements and plans across 78 local authorities will be reduced down to 17 regional combined plans, developed over two years.
There is also considerable uncertainty over the future role of local government, and it is difficult to grasp why there could not have been a more co-ordinated and cohesive plan unveiled well before the last local body elections.
Whether the standardised approach will go too far and override the interests of specific communities is a question which has already been raised in connection with heritage protection in Dunedin.
Councils will be required to provide relief when imposing heritage or indigenous biodiversity protection when this significantly affects the use of their land.
This could mean cash payments, rates rebates, extra development rights, no-fee consents, land swaps or the provision of expert advice.
The risk with this is that cash-strapped and rates-capped councils may be reluctant to protect what should be protected because they will not be able to afford it.
It will be essential the changes are not rushed and that the select committee process is thorough.
It has been encouraging Labour’s response has been to assure the public it is not interested in further major flip-flopping and it would opt to make changes to what is proposed rather than perpetuating the "repeal and replace cycle".
An unnecessary sour note was struck by the government, however, when it introduced, without any notice to other parties, a Bill under urgency on the afternoon of the announcement, allowing for the extension of existing resource consents and recently expired ones, with few exceptions, to the end of 2027.
While there is a need to provide for those caught up in transition to the new laws, it is hard to see this was an emergency which required the Bill to be pushed through all stages by yesterday morning.
Parliament was told there were several thousand consents involved, but there was no detail on them, no time for a regulatory impact statement or analysis of the cost and benefits.
If any extensions have detrimental effects, too bad.
It is another unfortunate example of sloppy law making.
