
%0 Journal Article
%A Crawford, D. 
%T THE NEW ZEALAND PETROLEUM INDUSTRY&apos;S EXPERIENCE UNDER THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
%J The APPEA Journal
%D 1995/06/30
%V 35
%N 1
%P 766-773
%K 
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ94053
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AJ94053 
%X There has been recent interest shown by Australian State and Federal Ministers in New Zealand&apos;s Resource Management Act. &apos;What does this Act require of industry? where did it come from? what does it do and how much support does it have?&apos;, are the main questions asked by these Ministers. It appears that some Ministers in Australia may want to copy parts of the Act. The main thrusts of the legislation, its disadvantages and suggestions for improvements are discussed.The main points are summarised:Prior to 1991 the management and planning of resources and the environment within New Zealand was controlled by a myriad of Acts. In 1991 the Government repealed 54 pieces of legislation and replaced these with the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Crown Minerals Act (CMA). These two pieces of legislation have had an enormous impact on petroleum exploration.Prior to 1991 the Town and Country Planning Act was the main Act responsible for providing guidance for planning processes with a focus of managing activities, whereas the focus of the RMA is the sustainable management of the effects of activities on natural and physical resources (land, water and air). The RMA provides that the harvesting of minerals is exempt from the sustainability requirement, but that the effects of exploration and mining activities on the environment are not.Industry is supportive of the approach that effects are to be managed, not the activities themselves, as it places all activities on a level playing field.There are some disadvantages of the RMA. If parts of the Act are to be copied by other countries, then it would be wise to avoid these. 
