222. Applicants wishing to undertake activities under the RMA are often subject to requirements and processes that are disproportionately costly, time-consuming, anduncertain.
223. In 2013, Cabinet agreed to insert new procedural matters (ie proposed section 7B) into Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA, requiring decision-makers to endeavour to apply a range of process matters indecision-making.
224. This proposal is a revised version of the 2013 proposal. It requires decision-makersto:
· use timely, efficient, consistent, cost-effective, and proportionalprocesses
· ensure that policy statements and plans only include matters relevant to the purpose of the RMA and use clear and conciselanguage
· promote collaboration between or among local authorities on common resource managementissues.
225. It also removes the words "must to endeavour to", replacing it with a more prescriptive "must", which would require all decision-makers exercising functions and powers to ensure that the above criteria are met. However, there is a risk that the unintended consequence of using "must” is a likely increase in challenge and litigation, on the basis that decision-makers have not met the criteria set out in that section when exercising functions and powers. This would have the perverse effect of increasing cost and uncertainty of processes, rather than promoting procedural efficiency. This could be particularly problematic where powers and functions are exercised which do not relate to policy statements/plans or collaboration between local authorities (eg, local authority notification of resource consent applications, the Environmental Court in making decisions on appeals, Minister for the Environment's function of appointing boards ofinquiry).
226. Feedback from the 2013 discussion document and consultation with Government agencies was that the proposed section was not considered appropriate for inclusion in Part 2 (Purpose and principles) of the RMA. The proposed section has now been re-positioned into Part 3, where it is a better draftingfit.
Less prescriptive proceduralrequirements
227. An alternative to the proposal is to use less prescriptive wording for the new procedural requirements, for example, reverting back to the original 2013 proposals “must endeavour to”. This would still achieve the policy intent of the new section when combined with other parts of the reform package (eg, national template, new planning tracks, and changes to consenting and appeals) while precluding new grounds for appeal and judicialreview.
228. Another alternative is to add qualifiers such as “must take all practicable steps to” or “must take all reasonable steps to”. These qualifiers still provide openings for challenge (eg, what is "practicable" or "reasonable") but may reduce the litigation risk from "must" which does not contain such qualifiers and would therefore be required to be achieved in all circumstances. However, these qualifiers would achieve the purpose of imposing a tighter requirement on councils than "must endeavourto".
229. The proposed addition would make accountabilities clear for decision-makers in ensuring that the costs of implementing RMA processes areminimised.
230. There have been significant advances in technology since the RMA was introduced in 1991. The RMA needs to be agile and able to make use of these advancements to ensure resource management processes are as efficient as possible. At present, the means by which councils service documents for resource management processes (in newspapers and via hard copy post) are not aligned with emerging technologytrends.
231. It is also important to ensure resource management processes create the right outcomes for the community and the environment, while being clear and easy to navigate. At present there is variability in the size, style and content of public notices. These factors can lead to the general public becoming disengaged from processes that affect them. This can also lead to unnecessary process costs and extended timeframes for applicants and councils for notified processes under theRMA.
232. This proposal will encourage greater electronic servicing of documents by requiringthat:
· all councils place key resource management content online, including public notices, resource management plans, plan changes and all publicly notifiedapplications
· all public notices are published as short summaries with details of the internet site where the full notice, the application, and any further information can be accessedonline
· all public notices are written using clear, conciselanguage
· applicants and submitters specify an electronic address for service to councils and that this is the default for all applicationcorrespondence
· councils only need to physically service parties with documents when an electronic address is notprovided.
233. The proposed changeswill:
· reduce the length of public notices and improve readability to facilitate increased public engagement
· reduce the end user advertising, printing and postage costsincurred
· encourage greater use of existing electronic platforms to increase publicengagement
· provide greater flexibility in the methods by which documents are serviced under the RMA
· align RMA processes with changing social and technology preferences and wider governmentinitiatives
· make RMA processes more resilient to recent changes in the frequency of postal delivery.
234. There are short-term low costs to central government to develop and implement this proposal through legislation, and little to no costs for the public/end user. While local government may incur medium costs to develop online tools and platforms, this proposal will lead to significant reduction in advertising, printing and postage costs in the medium to longer term. Many councils are also utilising electronic methods now and for these council there will be low to no additional costs. Public notices will be more accessible to the public, enhancing levels of public engagement with resource managementprocesses.
Public notices and servicing of documents fullyweb-based
235. Under this option, documents would only be published online and public notices would no longer be published in newspapers, with no requirement to physically service parties with documents unless explicitlyrequested.
236. While this option achieves the many of the benefits and cost-savings as the proposal, there is a risk that overall public engagement in resource management processes may decrease.
At this point in time, some parties may not be made aware of proposals through solely electronic means. Parties who are not able or capable of accessing the internet may feel unable to participate or miss opportunities toparticipate.
Greater non-legislative guidance to improve existingmethods
237. Another option is to encourage increased use of online platforms and electronic servicing of documents through a range of non-legislative methods such as best practice guidance. This would mean councils could elect how, when and to what extent electronic delivery of information is undertaken. While the option could partially achieve the same benefits as the other options, the publishing of notices and servicing of documents would still be restricted by the existing provisions of the RMA. For example, some councils provide documents electronically and still serve physical documents. The proposal is clarifying that electronic servicing is sufficient byitself.
238. Under this option, there is a risk that current practice will not change and existing process issues will remain including the current degree of variation in the size and style of notices. Generally notices include an excessive level of detail and jargon and this can lead to undue costs andcomplexity.
239. The proposal outlined is the preferred option as it will provide clarity that councils are able to modify current practice to ensure electronic servicing is utilised in the first instance to create process efficiencies. While making the processes more efficient, this option also ensures there is flexibility to physically serve documents where required by the public and requires councils to modify current practice to ensure notices are published as short summaries expressed in clear, concise language. This option will help increase overall public engagement in the resource management processby:
· reducing the length of public notices and improvingreadability
· reducing the costs incurred from advertising, printing andpostage
· facilitating greater use of existing electronic platforms to increase publicengagement
· providing greater flexibility in the methods by which documents are serviced under the RMA
· making RMA processes more resilient to recent changes in the frequency of postal delivery
· aligning RMA processes with changing social and technology preferences and wider governmentinitiatives.
240. This proposal will contribute to ensuring that the tools under the RMA arefit-for-purpose.
