The National-led government is introducing changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and fears are being expressed that they will favour economic development ‘at the expense of the environment’.

The Prime Minister implicitly acknowledged this fear last weekend when he referred to the need to strike the right ‘balance between our environmental responsibilities and our economic opportunities’.

Yet is there really a conflict?  People naturally want ‘more pay for less work’ and a cleaner environment. The productivity gains from economic development make both increased leisure time and a cleaner environment more affordable.

Indeed, increased leisure time, better health, higher incomes and a cleaner environment is what economic development has delivered in the last century, at least among developed countries.

Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg documented the gains for practically every measurable indicator at great length in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the State of the World. (His book immediately added that this did not mean that everything was good enough, although that did not save him from a torrent of abuse and denial.)

So if the purpose of the RMA is to help New Zealanders improve their well-being it would not be anti-development. Indeed, it is a myth that the National government that took it through Parliament in 1991 ever intended it to be anti-development.

Of course, in any particular case there could well be a trade-off between higher material incomes and a cleaner environment, just as there may be between higher material incomes and more leisure time.

Take dairy farming. It adds to the income of New Zealanders, but is polluting waterways.  By sacrificing some of this income, New Zealanders could have cleaner waterways. There is the trade-off.  Both aspects matter for the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Enter the RMA. Its purpose statement is ambiguous.  One part of it requires consideration to be given to the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Doing so requires a balanced approach. Another part advocates ‘avoiding, remedying or mitigating’ the adverse effects of an activity on the environment. That part considers only one side of the trade-off.  This is unbalanced.

In short, perhaps the real debate is about what the RMA’s purpose should be – to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders by acknowledging the need for balance in a particular case, or to sacrifice the wellbeing to the higher cause of ‘protecting the environment’.