Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd Be.
Speaker 2: Cabinet has agreed that new RMA rules should only restrict
Speaker 2: a building that impacts other properties or the wider environment.
Speaker 2: The government said enjoyment and property rights will be the
Speaker 2: guiding principle and replacing the RMA. But how much will
Speaker 2: it really improve development? What difference will it make? Well
Speaker 2: to discuss that with me now is the Undersecretary to
Speaker 2: the Ministry responsible for RMA reform, and he is Simon Court.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Simon. Every time I would say
Speaker 2: most New Zealanders hear the word the letter's rama. It's
Speaker 2: never about anything good. What's wrong with it?
Speaker 1: Well, for too long the Resource Management Actors made it
Speaker 1: too difficult, unclear, too expensive to get consents to build
Speaker 1: things that we know we need, whether it's housing, subdivisions
Speaker 1: or new bridges for example. My background is a civil engineer.
Speaker 1: I've worked on landfills, worked on rooting projects, and the
Speaker 1: time it takes to get consens for things is often
Speaker 1: longer than it takes to build things. So I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about this for many years and now as part
Speaker 1: of the coalition government have an opportunity to put some
Speaker 1: of some of the concepts that Act campaigned on and
Speaker 1: that are in the Act National Coalition Agreement into practice,
Speaker 1: which is to replace a system we've got which is
Speaker 1: called integrated resource management, mixing up development aspirations, Well the gosh,
Speaker 1: we've got to protect everything everywhere we find it, the
Speaker 1: precautionary principles saying well, we better not do it now.
Speaker 1: We're going to have a system that's going to be enabling.
Speaker 1: We're going to agree it's not if we can build something,
Speaker 1: but where. And guess what. We know that most things,
Speaker 1: whether it's a bruge or a subdivision, have been done
Speaker 1: thousands of times before, and they've been done with the
Speaker 1: minimal environmental impact. We can simply take all of those
Speaker 1: learnings put them into a new law, rather than having
Speaker 1: to have people apply for consents for things that we
Speaker 1: already know how to do. Well.
Speaker 2: Is it just straightforward just to say, look, we're not
Speaker 2: reforming now, we're throwing this one out and we're starting
Speaker 2: from Is it starting from scratch?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we certainly are the problem with the resource management
Speaker 1: at is it talks about all of these concepts going
Speaker 1: back to the nineteen seventies, like sustainable development and integrated management.
Speaker 1: It's just not possible. There's no other country in the
Speaker 1: world has copied what New Zealand trying to do, bringing
Speaker 1: all these things of the one law. Most other OECD
Speaker 1: countries have separate law for development and housing, particularly for
Speaker 1: infrastructure enabling, and separate law that sets environmental limits, say
Speaker 1: for fresh water, coastal areas or air quality. So we're
Speaker 1: going to create two separate pieces of legislation and it's
Speaker 1: going to be very clear. There will be environmental limits
Speaker 1: and places that there need to be and that are
Speaker 1: special ti kiwis. But most of the places that we
Speaker 1: want to get on and build, whether it's state highways,
Speaker 1: whether it's wastewater treatment plants or pump stations, housing subdivisions,
Speaker 1: they're going to be shown on a map where they're going,
Speaker 1: and at that point it won't be having to ask
Speaker 1: for permission. All will be doing is making sure that
Speaker 1: those things fit within existing environmental best practice.
Speaker 2: How different does your approach to what labor, Because labor,
Speaker 2: we're trying to reform it as well, weren't they.
Speaker 1: Labor had proposed a very complicated series of new laws,
Speaker 1: which included new and mystifying terms like temana tayo, which
Speaker 1: the lawyers I've just been a couple of days with
Speaker 1: the Planning Conference and New Plymouth this week said they
Speaker 1: had no idea what that meant, how long it was
Speaker 1: going to take to work out what it meant. That's
Speaker 1: the last thing you do to give confidence to people
Speaker 1: who want to get on and build stuff. They had
Speaker 1: also planned that it would take ten years to implement
Speaker 1: their new system. Well, what we're saying is, look, it's
Speaker 1: much simpler than that. We've got to stop resource management
Speaker 1: doing system doing things it's not meant to do. But
Speaker 1: the resource management system doesn't need to control climate change.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got the zero carbonac, we've got their
Speaker 1: emissions trading scheme. The Resource Management Act actually doesn't need
Speaker 1: to control heritage. If some people who work at your
Speaker 1: local council think that the houses in your street look nice,
Speaker 1: well they should come around and knock on the door
Speaker 1: and ask the permission to lest those houses as heritage,
Speaker 1: rather than an issue blanket heritage orders that actually make
Speaker 1: it much harder for people to develop their properties.
Speaker 2: So I noticed in Crispship speech one of the Senates
Speaker 2: said that Cabinet has agreed to the high level principles
Speaker 2: for the system. What are the high level principles.
Speaker 1: Well, there's around ten of them, and at a high
Speaker 1: level essentially designs the outcomes of the act. So we
Speaker 1: want two acts with clear distinct purposes. We want two
Speaker 1: bottom lines, a double bottom line. We want to provide
Speaker 1: essential human needs. That means infrastructure and housing, food production
Speaker 1: for example, drinking water, energy, and the other bottom line
Speaker 1: is environmental limits. We want councils to be able to
Speaker 1: set environmental limits for fresh water, say in their region,
Speaker 1: not have them set by central government national standards. For
Speaker 1: most of the things we already do well. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've worked as a soil engineer, I work with people
Speaker 1: who do subdivisions, and I know that the emrosion can
Speaker 1: seem control traffic management noise does They are all the
Speaker 1: same type of consent conditions every time there's almost no change.
Speaker 1: Wine Co we make these into annational standards so you
Speaker 1: don't have to pay for consents. Now there's ten legislative criteria.
Speaker 1: If your listeners want to find out more, you can
Speaker 1: jump onto the high website. We'll certainly follow me on LinkedIn.
Speaker 1: Simon Court and I'll be posting with your updates about
Speaker 1: what we're up there.
Speaker 2: Have you had input or conversations with the opposition about this?
Speaker 2: And the reason I asked that is because obviously, in
Speaker 2: major pieces of legislation, you know, we want an act
Speaker 2: that's going to persist. We don't want it to be
Speaker 2: played around within three, six, nine years time. So what
Speaker 2: input are you expecting or seeking with other parties in
Speaker 2: Parliament on this, Well, we will.
Speaker 1: Be seeking the cooperation and support and some of the
Speaker 1: things that we do agree on with you opposition, such
Speaker 1: as the need for spatial planning one plan pro region
Speaker 1: that shows where the infrastructure is now, where the future
Speaker 1: infrastructure is, we're housing should be built up in a
Speaker 1: new transport bus center is going to be for example.
Speaker 1: There is no political disagreement that we need one spatial
Speaker 1: plan per region. That is an enduring concept. I think
Speaker 1: some of the challenges will place around the previous government
Speaker 1: wanted to make the treaty the center of resource management
Speaker 1: and what we're saying is, look, it's focused on private
Speaker 1: property rights. Many of the organizations I've spoken to ee
Speaker 1: Maori ruining organizations that want to invest in infrastructure and
Speaker 1: invest in their own housing. The place problem. They've got
Speaker 1: this the barriers put up by the resource central system.
Speaker 1: The last thing they want to do is have to
Speaker 1: go and negotiate with cousins that get along down the
Speaker 1: road and think the position about how they should be
Speaker 1: allowed to develop their land. So we say, look, it
Speaker 1: needs to be around private property rights, enabling infrastructure and housing,
Speaker 1: protecting the environment with sound environmental and it's based on science,
Speaker 1: it's not based on vibes. We think we'll have this
Speaker 1: up and running within three years, so it'll be past
Speaker 1: this term apartment and we aim to implement it very
Speaker 1: very quickly.
Speaker 2: What an impact do you expect it to have on
Speaker 2: the cost of developments. Let's just look at say residential
Speaker 2: proper then the cost of development. So how much money
Speaker 2: do you expect is going to be saved through the
Speaker 2: expediency of what you're proposing.
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of the savings will be in the
Speaker 1: infrastructure provided to housing developments and where we want to
Speaker 1: build up, saying cities like Auckland or Tarong or Hamilton
Speaker 1: for example. The infrastructu Commission estimates that New Zealand spends
Speaker 1: around one point three billion dollars per aund the just
Speaker 1: on consenting infrastructure. Now we can move that into a
Speaker 1: national standard where you don't have to ask for permission,
Speaker 1: then potentially there's a billion dollars worth of savings right
Speaker 1: there that won't go on through householders and infrastructure uses.
Speaker 1: The other things we want to do is allow people
Speaker 1: who own property and want to build on it, whether
Speaker 1: that's housing or industrial subdivisions that actually provide jobs for people,
Speaker 1: that they can just get on and do that and
Speaker 1: they don't have to ask for permission. The only concern
Speaker 1: that they'll have to address is does this affect my
Speaker 1: neighbors if I'm building higher than allowed in the zone,
Speaker 1: or is the noise, you know, the traffic movements for example,
Speaker 1: going to affect people who who live next door. So
Speaker 1: we're going to make it much easier to get on
Speaker 1: and build the things that we need for housing that
Speaker 1: encourage employment, and we think we can do this relatively quickly.
Speaker 2: What about the environment are there? Does it create any
Speaker 2: dangers in terms of people go on doing developments or
Speaker 2: building infrastructure where the environment hasn't really been properly considered.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the problems we've got the cities is
Speaker 1: that we do want to build out and up, and
Speaker 1: we have wastewater riverflows in Auckland into the harbor into
Speaker 1: our fresh water system and in the countryside you've got
Speaker 1: concerns that farmers are not looking after fresh water for example.
Speaker 1: There's many different ways that are except to do this,
Speaker 1: whether it's constructing new wetlands, planting out raperian species along
Speaker 1: the raperian margins, along stream banks. There are river care
Speaker 1: groups around New Zealand. Catgement management groups want to be
Speaker 1: able to take ownership of water quality their regions. They're
Speaker 1: made up of farmers, regional counselors, ere groups. We want
Speaker 1: to empower them to do that, and they can do
Speaker 1: that by setting environmental limits that what they want to
Speaker 1: see in their region, rather than have it handed to
Speaker 1: them top down. So we've got to invest in the infrastructure.
Speaker 1: We're going to provide an enabling pathway to do that
Speaker 1: in our cities where there's real pressure on the environment
Speaker 1: from growth, and we're going to give the opportunity to
Speaker 1: fix up the local environment to people who know it
Speaker 1: best and love it best.
Speaker 2: What are the reactions You're getting any pushback or applaudits
Speaker 2: from councils around the country.
Speaker 1: Well after the past couple of days, I've had the
Speaker 1: most incredible support from particularly lawyers and planners who work
Speaker 1: for councils that are trying to get their own infrastructure upgraded,
Speaker 1: whether it's upgrading the local wastewater treatment plant, building new roads,
Speaker 1: doing the coastal protection to stop the sea washing away
Speaker 1: roads and homes, for example. They're telling me, Simon, if
Speaker 1: you could get this as quickly as possible, would make
Speaker 1: it much easier for us to actually deliver the infrastruct
Speaker 1: through our communities met that we wouldn't spend years and
Speaker 1: potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in court for each
Speaker 1: results consent because someone turns out sectually a vicatious lilquan says, well,
Speaker 1: we don't think what you're doing is right by the environment,
Speaker 1: and we're going to object. We're actually going to make
Speaker 1: it much harder, if not impossible, for people who do
Speaker 1: not have direct interest of thems, they're not neighbors to
Speaker 1: object to the kind of things that a local government
Speaker 1: wants to do that benefit us. All. Yeah, overwhelming support
Speaker 1: from the planners and the lawyers have spoken to over
Speaker 1: the past few days. They're not worried about their jobs.
Speaker 1: What they're really concerned about is extra delivant better services
Speaker 1: for all their clients and getting on delivering stuff.
Speaker 2: So, how you mentioned a window of about three years
Speaker 2: to get this legislation passed. How long do you expect
Speaker 2: it to be until the rule changes? The new act
Speaker 2: would actually see a tangible change in the way we
Speaker 2: get things done.
Speaker 1: Well, we'd like to have it passed. I think the
Speaker 1: intention is and from its Relux has confirmed this will
Speaker 1: we pass this term of government thinking a very rapid
Speaker 1: implementation phase rather than creating a whole lot of new rules.
Speaker 1: We're simply saying, if there's a national environmental standard safe
Speaker 1: for chelecommunications, renewable energy, for electricity transmission, all these things
Speaker 1: that really exist, then councils shouldn't be able to ask
Speaker 1: for anything more, either in their plans or consents. Therefore,
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to do that as of right.
Speaker 1: What we're hoping to do is to turn off large
Speaker 1: parts of existing plans. Essentially national standards override, because look,
Speaker 1: we've got a national standard to protect the environment. There's
Speaker 1: no sense in law and Coupital's asking people for consent
Speaker 1: conditions or for consents or putting planning conditions in their
Speaker 1: local plans. We're going to make sure that this is
Speaker 1: abled to implemented by turning off making things less complex,
Speaker 1: rather than adding more stuff to the.
Speaker 2: Me So you're going to pass this term, You've got
Speaker 2: what eighteen months to get it sort of eighteen months
Speaker 2: two years to get it all past, isn't you? Well?
Speaker 1: Fortunately, we're not starting from black slate. I mean I
Speaker 1: conduct more than forty interviews or people while in opposition
Speaker 1: to come up with the policies that reflect accesspirations for
Speaker 1: a system based on property rights. But that also all
Speaker 1: the things that we've learned through the Select Committy processes
Speaker 1: on the previous government's failed attempt at resource management reform.
Speaker 1: We're taking all the good things that infrastructure, property developers
Speaker 1: and the environmental scientists and fondness and we're putting them
Speaker 1: into this design outline. We're going to get a group
Speaker 1: of experts, lawyers, planners, environment scientists, people with tau Maori
Speaker 1: knowledge to essentially produce the bulldeprint and the legislative architecture.
Speaker 1: We're well down the track. We're not going to be
Speaker 1: waiting for for years for a group of lawyers and
Speaker 1: do good is to tell us how to do this.
Speaker 1: We've set the addenda around about ten legislative principles and
Speaker 1: we're expected to get on and act, start drafting legislation
Speaker 1: early next year, have it into the House in middle
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Excellent.
Speaker 1: OK.
Speaker 2: Hey, look, so I'm going to re appreciate your time
Speaker 2: this afternoon. So a big job, so crack on, thank
Speaker 2: you very much. Yes, there we go that. Simon Courty's
Speaker 2: the Under Secretary Parliamentary arounder secretary for RM reform. We're
Speaker 2: going to do some talkback after the break.
Speaker 1: And now the.
Speaker 2: Simple question is do you, well, simple straightforward questions, do
Speaker 2: you support RAMA reform. I would have thought that's that's
Speaker 2: a no brainer, isn't it. I mean, is there anyone
Speaker 2: who thinks, no, no, RMA is working just fine right now?
Speaker 2: Do you support it being basically let's throw it out
Speaker 2: and start again and come up with a new piece
Speaker 2: of legislation. But in particular the getting rid of I
Speaker 2: guess actually the couple of things resonated. I think that
Speaker 2: there's a I don't want to put this the wrong way,
Speaker 2: but it does come across a little bit that in
Speaker 2: a lot of our legislation there's a bit of virtue
Speaker 2: signaling going on. And I don't mean this to beat
Speaker 2: up on treaty principal clauses and things like that, but
Speaker 2: more things that are a bit amorphous and hard to
Speaker 2: sort of pin down. Do you support the idea? It's like, hey,
Speaker 2: lock first principle, it's your property, do what you will,
Speaker 2: but you must do it within the law. But we're
Speaker 2: not going to make you jump through a million hopes.
Speaker 2: Do you support this reform of the IMA? And for
Speaker 2: more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news Talks
Speaker 2: it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio