The "Resource Management Act" works well for New Zealand?

On average, everyone disagrees with nonconsensus between 215 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

The RMA as a concept is good. However, the administration is open to abuse and can add significant time to developments that benefit New Zealand.

RMA tries to cover all aspects of everything. In doing so it takes a broad brush approach which is interpreted differently by different territorial authorities leading to confusion. Note the NZ Governments's dilemma over the 'power pylons issue'. This mirrors what is faced by private individuals on other issues, but we cannot legislate to get around it.

NO! Was that a pig flew passed the window? The RMA is an expensive waste of time, effort and money.

As a practising town planner the problems with the RMA as are follows: - There is a presumption of notification, but applicants and developers can and do argue over this issue with every application. Notification should be legislated if it is seen as desirable. - We need to decide whether it is a rules based system or a discretionary system. - We need to get the lawyers out of the act and stop thinking every decision maker will be unreasonable. - There needs to be a seperate Act or separate part of the RMA to deal with urban areas.

no, it was originally brought in(1991) to be reviewed 10 years on(2001), here we are (2010) and it still hasnt been done! i know id be fired if i was 9 days behind at work, let alone 9 years!!!!

Reasons To Agree