In the past, I've talked about National gutting the RMA if they gain power. Reading the RMA policy [PDF] they released earlier in the week, that seems to be an entirely accurate description. But to explain why, I first need to explain a little about how the RMA works.
The RMA is driven by two big ideas. The first, as you'd expect from legislation passed during the Revolution, is the market. According to Treasury, who first floated the idea in their all-encompassing 1987 briefing to the incoming government, Government Management, planning was simply a matter of balancing competing property rights. To steal an example from Brian Easton, if someone wants to build an airport, while residents want peace and quiet, the best solution will be found by letting the parties reach a deal on the open market, and effectively buy the other out of their right to make noise or enjoy peace and quiet respectively (see Coase's theorem). The problem in planning decisions is that no-one really knows what the property rights are. So, in part, the RMA is a mechanism for determining the property rights of existing users, allowing them to either be balanced against the benefits of development, or bought out, depending on how people feel.
The second big idea is community participation and local democracy. This was a backlash against the National Development Act of the 70's and 80's, which had seen large projects foisted on local communities whether they wanted them or not, and regardless of environmental impacts. This process hit its nadir with the Clyde Dam debacle, which saw the National government under Muldoon overturn court decisions with special empowering legislation - the environmental equivalent of a bill of attainder. As a result, the RMA took power away from central government and put it squarely in the hands of local communities. Local governments would set their own policies and plans in consultation with their communities. If someone applied for a resource consent, anyone would be able to object (this was also necessary for the market aspect to work). Central government could override those plans by setting national policy statements, but only after a painstaking consultation process, and while it could "call in" projects of national significance, the decision would be made by an independent board or the environment court. The only area where Ministers retained decision-making power over individual projects was the coastal marine area, where they were acting as landowners rather than regulators.
How would National change this? Firstly, they would amend the definition of "environment" to include only "natural and physical resources" - so existing rights to amenity values such as peace and quiet, clean air, clean water, or an unimpeded view would cease to exist, while local bodies could no longer seek to protect their social environment by considering e.g. the effects of traffic, or the effects of visual pollution from excessive advertising. Secondly, they would aim to prevent "vexatious and frivolous" objections by allowing the Environment Court to require security for costs before considering any appeal (so no appeals unless you are rich like them). Thirdly, they would replace the existing call in power with a more regularly used "priority consenting" regime, which would see decisions made by a government body rather than an independent board. There's some other nastiness - removing the Ministerial veto over coastal permits (so effectively the crown won't own the coast anymore in any practical sense), and establishing an "Environmental Protection Agency" as cover for purging MfE (who National doesn't trust) - but the driving principle is to shut local communities out of decision making, and prevent anyone - unless they are rich, of course - from mounting any challenge. And the net result will be open slather for developers, and large projects foisted on local communities, just like they were under Muldoon.
This is not "reform" - it is regression. And if you care at all about your environment, both natural and social, then you should not vote for it.
