There are many implications that have arisen through research on this policy report. For instance, the unclearness of the term kaitiakitanga in section 7 of the RMA.[1] The ambiguity of section 7 is problematic in two aspects. Firstly, because the section states that persons are only to ‘have particular regard’ to kaitiakitanga. This may be interpreted in many different ways as it is not defined clearly. The term kaitiakitanga may also be interpreted differently by Maori and non-Maori due to their different understandings of the term as previously mentioned in this report.
A second implication that arose within this report is that the consultation process was argued to be wasteful and time consuming. The consultation process was one of the main causes for the Resource Management Amendment Act 2009. It was argued by the Federated Farmers Association of New Zealand that resource consents be streamlined, and vexatious submitters be “clamp down” on.[2] It was revealed that many people who opposed resource consent applications were able to because the RMA (before amendment) allowed “any persons” who may not have a direct connection with the resource consent the opportunity to oppose applications.[3] Understandably this is a costly process each time an applicant seeks approval from the Environment Court. Therefore “streamlining” and making the consultation process proceed faster is attractive.
However, the consultation process is necessary if all issues concerning resource consents are to be heard and discussed. It was argued at the Bill’s second and third readings that the true purpose of the amendment Act may be to “remove obstacles of public participation from the path of developers to make their money at the expense of the environment.”[4] This may be true in regards to commercial developers who wish to hurry along the consultation process, but may be argued against by residents who simply wish to trim trees or extend their family home.
It was also stated that the RMA does not offer clear guidance for local governments on how to incorporate Maori environmental concepts into development plans. Those who wished to develop on certain areas only had to “have regard” to functions of the Act.[5] Local governments did not receive any direction from central government on how to implement Maori concepts into development plans, which is why Maori participation in the consultation process is vital.
[1] Ericksen, et al. 2004; 105.
[2] Federated Farmers Association, page 3 of their proposed amendments.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Jeanette Fitzimmons, Hansard debates. 8th September, 2009.
[5] Ericksen et al. 105.