Farmers back government’s RMA reforms
Farmers appear to be backing the Government's recent Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms announcement.
That’s the perspective of IrrigationNZ chief executive Vanessa Winning. She says that, in its current form, the Natural Built Environment Bill (NBEB) – which at the time Rural News went to print was before select committee – lacks sufficient detail to make it workable.
Reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA) have been on the cards for a while, with the full reform package finally unveiled in February 2021. The first draft of the NBEB was released in July that year. Meanwhile, late last year, the NBEB and the Spatial Planning Bill (SPB) – which makes up another part of the reform package – were introduced to Parliament in November 2022.
“For implementation of the NBEB to be successful, it needs to be simplified with limits and targets removed from the overarching bill and instead outlined through the National Planning Framework and current notified processes,” Winning says.
The National Planning Framework is another piece of the RMA reform package. It is designed, according to the Ministry for the Environment, to provide direction for regional spatial strategies and National Built Environment plans.
She says that the four pieces of legislation set to replace the RMA need to be developed and consulted on together, “so we can see how they work as one and remove duplication and confusion”.
Additionally, Winning claims the two bills before Parliament – the NBEB and the SPB – will hold the development of water infrastructure back.
“This development needs to be supported by long-term water allocation consents – the NBEB is suggesting consents be cut short to 10 years maximum. This will prohibit water storage or investment in water capture,” she told Rural News.
“Water availability is critical for food production, to mitigate floods, to augment streams in droughts, and to ensure biodiversity. Water capture and storage supports the systems outcomes of the NBEB – yet it has not been enabled by the Bill.”
Winning says IrrigationNZ’s belief is that certain infrastructure classes have been cherry picked in the Bill, something she describes as ‘dangerous’ because we do not yet know what the country’s future needs will be.
“All infrastructure must be considered on merits and measured against the system outcomes. If need be, water infrastructure should be able to be fast-tracked or have a consenting pathway if weather means that we need water security ASAP.”
She adds this is not a provision that has been made in the current draft of the Bill.
“Yet, we note there are consenting pathways for solar power, for example, but not localised hydroelectricity which would be a natural by-product of water capture and storage.”
Winning says all limits and targets should be removed from the overarching framework and, instead, set at a local or national level through consultation and then outlined in the National Planning Framework.
“At a time when a changing climate poses such significant risk to lives and livelihoods, when food affordability – particularly fresh fruit and vegetables – is really biting, practical, longterm water management should be considered critical to New Zealand’s future and enabled by the legislation which replaces the RMA.”
