The Government has been working on big changes to the way New Zealand manages its resources ever since it was sworn into power late last year. It’s now working through the third phase of that plan – replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA).
The RMA was passed in 1991 and sets out how to sustainably manage New Zealand’s land, air and water. Its decision-making framework requires groups to consider the environmental impacts of their activities.
Over time, the Act has become a bone of contention for developers, businesses and councils frustrated with what they say are complex regulations and lengthy consent processes. Critics say the RMA ultimately delays planning and developments.
On the other hand, iwi and environmental advocates generally argue the RMA protects natural resources and biodiversity, while also helping to protect land and cultural heritage via its requirements to consult with tangata whenua.
However, many agreed that some reform of the RMA was needed – which is why the previous Labour government moved to replace it last year.
Labour passed two laws – the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act – to create a new resource management system to phase in over the coming years.
However, critics of the legislation said the reforms were as long and complicated as the RMA. The National Party promised to repeal both laws if voted into power – and that’s exactly what it did under urgency in the days before Christmas last year.
The Government wants to fast track big projects. (Source: 1News)
A new plan
Repealing those two laws formed the first phase of the Government’s overhaul of resource management.
The second phase meant introducing new legislation, including the controversial Fast-Track Approvals Bill.
That bill aims to create a fast-track approvals process for infrastructure projects and developments.
It has been through some significant changes since the Government unveiled it in February. Most notably, ministers would no longer have the final say on fast-tracked projects like originally planned.
Phase two also included introducing two RMA amendment bills to make some targeted changes to resource management while the Government develops new laws to replace the RMA.
Moving away from the RMA
Work to replace the Resource Management Act – phase three of the Government’s plan – is now underway.
Two laws will be developed to replace the RMA.
One will be focused on urban development and infrastructure and will align with the Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme and 30-year National Infrastructure Plan.
The other new law will focus on environmental protection.
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said the new legislation “will be based on the enjoyment of property rights”. That means allowing people to do more on their own property more easily – so long as it doesn’t harm others and respects environmental considerations.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court said putting property rights at the centre of resource management “means ditching rules that invite every Tom, Dick, and Harry to vexatiously object to peaceful use and development of private property”.
“Rules should only restrict activity with material spillover effects on other people’s enjoyment of their own property, or on the property rights of the wider natural environment that sustains us,” he said.
What does that look like in practice?
The new legislation would require one regulatory plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils. Height limits and setback rules would remain.
The system would also include a greater use of national standards to simplify council plans and reduce the need for resource consents. That would mean an activity that already complied with national standards wouldn’t require consent.
A more permissive system would require more monitoring and heavier penalties for those who didn’t comply with the rules, the Government said, adding that work was underway to decide how best to address that.
There are also plans to establish a “rapid, low-cost” system for resolving disputes between neighbours, property owners and councils. This could take the shape of a Planning Tribunal, much like the Disputes Tribunal.
Finally, Cabinet guidelines say the new resource management system must achieve its goals while also safeguarding the environment and human health, and upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlements and the Crown’s obligations.
The next steps
The Government has appointed an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) to develop a blueprint for the new laws.
The EAG is due to deliver that blueprint to Chris Bishop before Christmas.
The new legislation is then expected to be introduced in Parliament sometime next year and passed into law before the general election in 2026.
The March for Nature protest, organised by a range of environmental groups, calls for the Fast-track Approvals Bill to be withdrawn. (Source: 1News)
What are groups saying about the plans?
Infrastructure New Zealand welcomed the proposed changes.
“The RMA continues to be a significant barrier to the development of the 21st century infrastructure that New Zealand needs,” said policy director Michelle McCormick.
“It is outdated and overly complex, which leads to delays and increased costs that prevent communities from addressing critical challenges like climate resilience and the supply of sufficient housing.”
McCormick said she was encouraged to see the Government focusing on a “simpler, more efficient planning system”.
However, the Environmental Defence Society said it had some concerns over the Government’s plans.
“The announced framing for the replacement RMA laws is very complex and in part seems driven by ideological rather than evidence-based analysis,” said EDS CEO Gary Taylor.
“Property rights are important, but they are not the overarching principle on which protection of the natural world should be based.”
Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking also expressed concerns over the proposed changes, saying they would “[take] New Zealand backwards”.
“By placing property rights ahead of all other considerations, the Government is leaving out the impact to future generations and ignoring that the next climate change-induced hurricane or landslide doesn’t care where your boundary ends,” she said.
“The environment is not a nice to have – we can’t survive without it.”
