Opinion: There should have been no surprises with the Government’s announcement of the new planning legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act. The Planning Bill will focus on regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land, with direction on urban development, infrastructure (including renewable energy) and natural hazards; and the Natural Environment Bill will focus on the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment, with direction on freshwater, indigenous biodiversity, and coastal policy.
The Government’s policy has been well-signalled with an Expert Advisory Group’s blueprint report for replacing the Resource Management Act being publicly released along with the Cabinet papers which adopted most of its recommendations.
The announcement a couple of weeks ago of a proposed mechanism for ditching elected regional councillors still makes little sense of an election that was allowed to proceed only a matter of weeks ago. I have pondered why the Government didn’t just rollover the existing councils for a transitional period while this reform was progressed. It still seems unfair that people were invited to campaign (at no small expense) for an office that the Government knew would be essentially “gone by lunchtime” to coin a phrase.
Was this a final humiliation for the councils that are being asked to bear the brunt of all that has gone badly with the Resource Management Act?
The disgraceful rhetoric of the Minister for Regional Development, who in excusing his debasing descriptions of regional councillors as “politician” talk, sounded a bit like someone who excuses other forms of rhetoric as “locker room talk”. It’s not okay to say such things no matter who you are and where you are. Let’s play the ball not the player.
I don’t believe the comparison between these two bills needs to be between them and the Resource Management Act. That reform is necessary is agreed. The comparison needs to be between them and the two bills passed under the last government and repealed by this coalition Government. Have we wasted two years where progress could have been made?
It was positive to hear Labour Leader Chris Hipkins saying they are open to working with the Government to achieve a framework that they don’t feel they need to repeal the minute they get into office. I often say there are things where cross-party alignment is absolutely the way to go, and this is another one of them.
The other one I mention a lot is civil defence and emergency management across its four components: risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. The connection between these and land use planning is vital. When I was the opposition spokesperson on civil defence, I visited the groups and the councils around the country to get a feel for what was important. When I met rural councils, they always brought a land-use planner with them. They understood more than the “townies” that the decisions made on land-use would have a flow-on effect in a disastrous event.
Having seen firsthand the consequences of development decisions that were made without any consideration of the impact of the seismic activity we ended up experiencing, we need to be sure we are not exposed to development at all costs. A commitment to disaster risk reduction would mean we take considerably more care making these decisions.
Start your day informed. Make room for newsroom’s top stories. Direct to your inbox daily.
I attended an excellent civil defence and emergency management councillor induction day in the Bay of Plenty this week. You would be excused for thinking there would be a sense of despair over the forthcoming demise of the regional councillor positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. They started with a whakatauki that translated to “turn and face the sun, let your shadow fall behind you”. This was too important to let anything stand in the way of their commitment to their communities, demonstrating a better kind of leadership than the aforementioned minister.
I have to admit I was caught by surprise when the representative from Earth Science NZ spoke. I had not appreciated the extensive faultlines that exist in that area, the challenges with geothermal and hydrothermal alteration to the land, as well as the difference between ashfall prediction (what comes down) and the aviation focus which is on what stays in the air. I am sure I haven’t got this completely right, but it reinforces just how much we need to know about the places where we live, work and play. And from a planning perspective we cannot have a development-at-any-cost mentality either; sustainable development needs to be the focus.
When I saw that the Minister for Emergency Management, Mark Mitchell, had introduced a new Emergency Management Bill to replace the CDEM Act on the same day as the Resource Management Act reform I thought this might indicate an alignment we haven’t seen before. But sadly, this appears to be another lost opportunity to draw the link between investing in risk reduction and readiness for recovery as well as response, when it comes to land-use planning and management of natural hazards.
Suffice to say there is a lot of work still to be done, and several submissions to write over the summer break.