VZCZCXRO2085
RR RUEHDT RUEHPB
DE RUEHWL #0090/01 0980302
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 080302Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5822
INFO RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 1946
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 5486
RUEHAP/AMEMBASSY APIA 0552
RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 0825
RUCNARF/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 WELLINGTON 000090 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR STATE FOR EAP/ANP 
PACOM FOR J01E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV SENV ECON NZ
SUBJECT: CONTROVERSIAL NZ RESOURCE ACT TO BE REFORMED 
 
WELLINGTON 00000090  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  On February 19, the GNZ introduced legislation 
aimed at reforming the controversial Resource Management Act (RMA). 
Meant to regulate infrastructure development, the RMA has been 
criticized as a barrier to economic growth.  Part of the legislation 
proposed the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency, which 
is under GNZ review.  Political parties have strong opinions on RMA 
reform, but have yet to respectively stake their definite positions 
on the issue.  Ideally the GNZ would like to achieve political 
consensus on RMA reform, while retaining the legislation's core 
environmental values.  End Summary. 
 
Government Seeks to Reform Environmental Management 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶2. (SBU)  On February 19, the Minister for the Environment Nick 
Smith introduced a bill for consideration by Parliament to amend the 
controversial Resource Management Act (RMA).  The RMA was adopted in 
1991 to review, regulate and authorize infrastructure building 
projects - from large-scale projects of national importance (dams) 
to local projects (a neighbourhood swimming pool).  The Government's 
Resource Management Act Simplifying and Streamlining Amendment Bill 
(the Amendment Bill) is intended to do just what the title implies: 
to simplify and streamline a permitting process that the governing 
National Party claims to be mired in excess complexity, delay and 
obstacles to the construction of needed infrastructure improvements. 
 
 
¶3. (SBU)  Critics assert that under the previous Labour Government, 
the RMA metastasized into an overarching regulatory regime that 
frustrated developers of all sizes and inadvertently invited an 
increase in frivolous objections to development projects.  Prime 
Minister John Key is one such critic, who repeatedly referred to the 
RMA as a "handbrake on growth" and vowed to introduce legislation to 
amend it while campaigning in 2008. 
 
Target: Lower Growth Barriers, Retain Core RMA Values 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶4. (SBU)  On introducing the Amendment Bill to Parliament, Smith 
made the case that the legislation is intended to strike a more 
appropriate balance between the promotion of development, 
consideration of public input and protection of the environment. 
Smith asserted that the Amendment Bill will create greater certainty 
around developments and stalled projects, and will "unlock that lost 
growth potential and untangle the red tape suffocating everyone from 
homeowners to business."  Smith has repeatedly given an assurance 
that the Amendment Bill will not compromise the RMA's core 
principles - which include allowing public input and protecting the 
environment.  The Government aims to have the legislation passed by 
June 2009. 
 
¶5. (SBU)  With respect to timing, Smith wants to have a modified 
regulatory regime in place by July 1, 2010.  That means major 
decisions on the contents of the proposed legislation must be 
resolved by June/July 2009; a final version of the bill must be 
introduced by September 2009 for consideration by Parliament in 
October and November; and the bill must be on placed on final 
reading in March 2010. 
 
Key Elements of the RMA Reform Package 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU)  The main features of the Amendment Bill are: 
 
- Removing opportunities that allow for frivolous, vexatious and 
anti-competitive objections; 
- Streamlining processes for projects of national significance; 
- Creating an umbrella Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to 
handle priority development projects; 
- Improving plan development and plan change processes; 
- Improving resource consent processes; 
- Streamlining decision making; 
- Improving workability and compliance; and 
- Improving national instruments for development. 
 
Possible Features of an EPA 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU)  The proposed establishment of a new EPA is meant to make 
more efficient the capacity to expedite consents for major building 
and infrastructure projects.  According to Allen Sheppard, a 
Ministry for the Environment staffer working with Smith on the EPA 
proposal, any new administrative structure would probably start out 
small.  Sheppard said that, while Smith had always voiced ambitions 
of establishing a broad over-arching regulatory apparatus similar to 
 
WELLINGTON 00000090  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Smith realizes that such a 
goal is unrealistic in the current economic situation and under 
Key's pledge to trim government staff and spending.  In addition, 
the National-led Government is not ready to endorse proposals to 
expand the bureaucracy any time soon, said Sheppard. 
 
¶8. (SBU)  Sheppard believes that the likely EPA outcome is a small 
statutory office within the Ministry for the Environment to review 
and approve major development projects of national importance 
(something that the previous Labour Government did informally and on 
an ad hoc basis).  This new office would take that responsibility 
away from local Regional Councils, which, according to Sheppard, 
lack the resources and expertise to handle such complex matters 
quickly and efficiently. 
 
Political Opponents Keep Their Powder Dry - For Now 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶9. (SBU)  Labour is predictably uneasy about reforms to the RMA, 
which Labour worked hard to strengthen and which it regards as a 
legacy item.  However, at this early stage of the Amendment Bill's 
passage through Parliament, Labour has not voiced too much 
opposition.  Labour has agreed to work on any concerns it has when 
the Local Government and Environment Select Committee meets on the 
Amendment Bill after public submissions close on April 9. 
 
¶10. (SBU)  The Green Party has asserted that the Amendment Bill, as 
drafted, will tip the balance in favor of developers.  Like Labour, 
however, the Greens have to date not yet voiced much opposition to 
the Amendment Bill.  The Greens have preferred to see how the 
Amendment Bill develops through the course of its passage in 
Parliament and will likely speak up more during the later stages of 
debate when the media start to take greater interest.  The Greens 
have, however, been vocal in calling for Maori rights under the RMA 
to be protected.  The Amendment Bill will restrict standing Maori 
rights to appeal local government development plans.  In an attempt 
to advance this position, the Greens have attempted to drive a wedge 
between National and its support partner, the Maori Party. 
 
Other Government Partners Have Differing Views on RMA 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶11. (SBU)  Although Maori Party continues to be silent on the 
proposed RMA reform, National's support partners are not as reticent 
about their respective positions on preferred RMA reform outcomes. 
Peter Dunne of the centrist United Future Party would like the 
legislation to ultimately reflect equal weighting of greater 
efficiency and strict environmental monitoring.  The hard-right ACT 
Party bases its position on RMA reform to its foundational 
principles of individual freedom and lowered regulation.  ACT's 
leader Rodney Hide wants the scope of the RMA diminished and 
supports Key's position that the present form of the RMA is a 
significant obstacle to economic development in New Zealand. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶12. (SBU)  Achieving a GNZ victory on all its key RMA objectives 
will depend on getting the details right.  National, however, has 
started well with Environment Minister Smith's signalling to the 
public that he is open to inputs to the RMA as it goes through the 
Select Committee process.  Smith will want to avoid any dogmatic 
position that will limit the Government's ability to build 
broad-based political consensus for reform.  Although National only 
needs one extra vote to seal the passage of the legislation, it 
would prefer political consensus given the wide-ranging and 
long-term implications of the RMA.  However, given the Government's 
belief that inaction on RMA reform will have dire economic 
consequences, Smith will keep the pressure on the Select Committee 
and Parliament to reach consensus quickly.  End Comment. 
 
Keegan