1. Following the Canterbury earthquakes in 2012, the RMA Principles Technical Advisory Group (TAG) identified that while sections 30 and 31 of the RMA require regional councils and territorial authorities to manage risks from natural hazards, it was not being effectively implemented for a variety of reasons,including:
· a lack of statutory recognition in Part 2 (sections 6 and 7) of theRMA
· limited local planningcapability
· shortcomings in governance and inter-governmental cooperation, including a lack of effective coordination between district and regional councils, and the activities of planners and emergency managementstaff.
2. In order to better manage risks from natural hazards in New Zealand and improve the integration of this matter across all levels of the RMA, it is proposed that "the management of significant risks from natural hazards" is included as a new section 6 matter that must be recognised and provided for in the RMA. This change will introduce the concept of risk management, as it relates to natural hazards, into Part 2 (the purpose and principles) of the RMA.
3. There is already a strong shift in current council practice towards managing risks from natural hazards. The purpose of the proposed new section 6 matter is to codify this best practice in the legislation and explicitly require decision-makers to consider this matter as part of their Part 2assessment.
4. This also upholds recommendations of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission to "ensure that regional and district plans (including the zoning of new areas for urban development) are prepared on a basis that acknowledges the potential effects of earthquakes and liquefaction, and to ensure that those risks are considered in the processing of resource and subdivision consents under theAct."
5. Adding this new matter to the principles of the Act will provide greater emphasis to the consideration of risks from natural hazards across all resource management decisions. This supports sections 30 and 31 of the RMA, which prescribes natural hazards management as a function of both regional councils and territorial authorities. This change also supports changes to section 106 regarding consideration of the risks from all natural hazards in subdivision consents (P3.8).
6. The effect of not having the section 6 matter would (relative to current local authority section 30 and 31 functions) bethat:
· natural hazards management would not be raised in importance for all decision-making under theAct
· local authorities would not be explicitly mandated to take a 'risk management' approach (although in general local authorities are moving towards this approach under the current legislation).
Provision of new nationaldirection
7. National direction (eg, in the form of a National Policy Statement) to manage risks from natural hazards could be introduced without the need for any amendment to Part 2 or any other part of the RMA provided the subject matter of the proposed national direction is relevant to achieving the purpose of the Act. National direction has the added benefit of being more directive and more flexible to change than inclusion in section 6. The proposed National Planning Template (P 1.3) could, in the future, also enable incorporation of pre- existing national direction and provide detailed guidance on how the purpose of these changes should be achieved andmeasured.
8. The National Policy Statement (NPS) could outline a risk management process for local authorities to undertake which would be consistent with achieving the purpose of the RMA. Local authorities would then be required to amend planning documents to 'give effect to' an NPS (section 55) and resource consent decisions must 'have regard to' relevant provisions of an NPS (section104).
9. The main risk of including this matter in national direction rather than in section 6 is that there is greater scope for challenge via judicial review as to whether it is within the purpose of the Act. However, the risk of successful judicial review is relativelylow.
10. Creation of meaningful national direction would be more time- and cost-intensive than a change to Part 2 directly. Consideration would need to be given to the priority of an NPS on these matters relative to national direction on othertopics.
11. This proposal would improve the management approach by mandating risk management as well as raise its importance, and would contribute to achieving the objective of ensuring accountabilities are clear in managing theserisks.
