Chris Bishop: RMA Reform Minister on replacing the RMA with the Planning and Natural Environment Acts

There’s an assurance RMA changes won't clog the courts.  

The Government's confirmed it's replacing current Resource Management Act laws with two new pieces of legislation, one for the environment and one for planning.  

It's expected to save about $13 billion in consenting costs. 

RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop told Heather du Plessis-Allan there's too much Environmental Court litigation at the moment. 

He says it’s inevitable there will be cases, but the aim is to reduce the amount of litigation and debate about things like the definition of “sustainable management”, which has been a topic of debate for around 30 years. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Back to the business of RMA reform. This government has
unveiled at seven hundred and fifty page proposal. It sets
clear limits on what councils can regulate. It's expected to
save about thirteen billion dollars in consenting costs and lift
GDP by zero point five to six percent annually by
twenty fifty. Christ Bishop is the RMA Reform Minister.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Morning Bish, good morning.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
I imagine this is a relief to get this workout.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
It's been a busy couple of years, in particularly last
busy couple of months.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Can imagine now listen, I think most people want to
see reform. It's hard to argue with what you've presented
in terms of a replacement, but there's always But how
much time do you think we're going to spend in
court testing this?

Speaker 2 (00:40):
I don't think a lot.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
In fact, part of the aim of it is to
try and get things out of court. To be honest,
there's way too much environment court litigation. It's inevitable there
will be cases, you know, you know, we have the
rule of law in this country. You can test things
through the courts and there will be some litigation. But
the actual aim of it is to try and get
less litigation less debate about, for example, what the words

(01:03):
sustainable management mean, which is in the current RMA, and
we've been debating at length for thirty years, so we've
removed that from the new planning system.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
What about though, working out the loss right? So I say,
my council says we want to designate your place a
heritage area. I say, well, I'm going to suffer loss.
Then we have to figure out how much the loss
is so I can be compensated. That's going to go
to court, isn't.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
It in some circumstances.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
But you know we have valuations now, for example, and
that would be rare circumstances we'd be asking counsels to Firstly,
they only do it when there's a significant impairment on
your property. And then secondly, you know there'll be an
evidence standard around value that we will set through legislation.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
To work that out. So I think all of these
things are able to work through.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
If we get the COMPO for something like a heritage
heritage designation, what is that like a bank transfer or
is it a rates reduction?

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Could be any number of different things.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
So what we're asking counts to do is to say, listen,
when you do something that has a significant impairment on
someone's property in the public good, and there is a
role for heritage, right and there's a role for citifident
natural heritage and biodiversity and things like that. When you
do that, but and you're essentially having an impact on
somebody else's property that diminishes their value, you have to
think hard about doing that. And if you do do it,

(02:19):
then think about ways to make them whole again. So
it could be rates through missions, it could be compensation,
it could be land swaps for example. It will depend
on where people live. There's a range of things that
they could do. They could get bonus development rights in
exchange for giving up part of their land, for example.
So there's any number of different things that councils will
be able to look at. And it's just a recognition

(02:41):
that you know, private private property is important, the public
goods important too, and we're just trying to get a
better balance between the two of them.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
Now, this requires councils to plan. Is it thirty years
in advance?

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yes, spatial plans will be thirty years in it.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Have we ever in this country planned thirty years in advance?
For anything.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
Well, Auckland is required to do a spatial plan now,
but the types of plans we're talking about the answer
is no.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
Do you have confidence we can? I mean, we get so.
It costs us millions to make plans and we fight
about it, and some of the plans that we're designed
a decay to go still aren't completely enforce and it's
still in courts I know.

Speaker 3 (03:19):
And that's why we're making the plan making process a
lot simpler. Let's be really clear about the spatial plan.
These are not detailed, dense city plans. Okay that there's
a role for those, and those are called land use
chapters or land use plans. Spatial plans are basically looking
out over the next thirty years and saying, okay, where's
the future growth going to go in Canterbury or Wellington,
for example, where are the new greenfields houses, where's the

(03:41):
new infrastructure corridors, where are the new roads going to go?
We're not going to build them straight away, but in
twenty fifty we might be looking at building a road here.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
So are you arguing it's going to be simpler.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
We can do this.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
The spacial plans will be simpler, but here's the thing.
Proper countries, effective countries do that stuff twenty five, thirty
forty years in advance, because once you once people know
where there might be a road in twenty five years,
the development.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
Goes around that.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
And also potentially in the future, we can lock in
those corridors through designations and lower the future costs of
infrastructure when we go and build a road.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
These days, we're.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
Often spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying up land
because we decided to build it, we didn't plan it
properly in advance. So these are the types of changes
we can make.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
Okay, now, listen, have you cut back on how much
power EWE has over development.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
Well, what we're doing is saying that there's a role
for EWI in terms of spatial planning, in terms of
sites of significance to Maori in terms of burial grounds
for example, or Wahitapu sites or and they need to
be identified early on in the spatial plan and then
the land use plans, and then you'll need to go

(04:50):
and talk to EWE about those things. But at an
individual consenting level, which we're trying to move away from
the idea that you need to go and talk to
everybody in the city, including EWI, about getting a consent
to do something. There will be fewer requirements for people
to go and talk to other people will including the council.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
I'm hardened to hear that, but tell me so. The
situation we had with IKEA was that IKEA had to
go and talk to man offender. It had a whole
bunch of groups them coming and doing cut a care
and visiting whenever they wanted, and you know, being you
know there for the spades in the ground and all
that kind of stuff. Is your reform going to stop
that happening again?

Speaker 3 (05:25):
It will make that far less likely to happen. I mean,
if I it's still going to happen, well, I can't
give you an individual hand on heart.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
This will stop because I don't know.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
I don't know what future circumstances will be like, but
there will be Put it this way, there will be
no It's highly unlikely there will be a legal requirement
for the IKEA current care situation to happen again.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
I can't see how in good conscience I could.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
How are you not sure about it?

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Though? If you are the misria, well, because I can't
give you every you know.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
In the same way if you asked me about another example,
I couldn't give you a because the law has even
been passed yet, so I can't give you a hand
on art. This will definitely stop what being honest with
you here that what I can say is it's very
likely that that will be far less likely in the
new law.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
All right, bish, thanks for your to I appreciate it.
That's Chris Bishop, RMA reform minister. I don't know is
that what you wanted to hear? Probably not.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
For more from the mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio