Two Bills to replace the Resource Management Act are being introduced to Parliament today by the Government.
The Planning Bill is to “enable development and regulate land use”, while the Natural Environment Bill would “protect nature and encourage the efficient use of land and resources,” says the RMA Reform Minister.
Individuals will have fewer opportunities for input on individual consents, while councils will have a lower threshold for compensating landowners facing “significant” impact from planning controls, like heritage sites or significant natural areas.
The SMC asked experts to comment on the proposals. Previous expert commentary on the RMA is available here.
Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments:
“Some of the changes in the two new replacement acts are akin to the previous Labour government’s proposals, such as the need for councils to have spatial plans to strategically plan city development, and to give land owners including neighbours more certainty.
“The RMA, despite its reputation, actually says you can do anything you want, as long as it doesn’t have a significant adverse effect on the environment. So anything could happen if you had the time and money for the process. The changes will certainly reduce costs for day to day things for most people, e.g. a house alternation that would currently breach council rules. Likewise, it would reduce costs for many business activities.
“But beware of the double-edged sword: most people don’t want restrictions on what they can do at their place – but quite like restrictions on neighbours!
“Who are the winners? Infrastructure developers, business, farmers. The losers? Māori, local consultation, environment, climate change action, and councils as there will be more central government/ministerial direction and decision making.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts of interest.”
Professor Robyn Phipps, School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“As urban areas and cities get denser, there is a greater need for tighter RMA controls to manage the effects between users.
“For example, if noisy activities are located in a residential area, then it will disturb peaceful enjoyment in the residential area, as well as sleep. A lot is known about the negative health effects from disturbed sleep, including the production of hormones that regulate appetite and satiation, plus cognitive function. We know people living in noisy areas will stay indoors, leading to social isolation, or avoid opening windows, leading to a buildup of indoor pollutants and moisture, which can lead to mould. Homes will become damp and unhealthy if the noises in the neighbourhood stop people from opening their windows.
“Conversely, if we allow urban areas to sprawl over greenfield sites, we will increase the need for roads, stormwater and other infrastructure. Because of our sprawling low-density cities, NZ already has huge amounts of capital tied up in sprawling infrastructure, plus the huge deficiencies in the supply and maintenance of infrastructure. So, carefully planned development rather than relaxed development will lead to poorer health outcomes and cost society more in the longer term.
“Every week we read of floods, cyclones and wild fires which are are consequences of environmental degradation and climate change. We only have one planet, and for the sake of future generations, we need to protect it rather than sell it for short term profits of a few developers.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have no COIs, other than I have shares in a family-owned company that owns some commercial property.”
Dr Joanne Clapcott, New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society President, comments:
“New Zealand’s freshwater is already under strain from decades of cumulative impacts and, in some places, we are watching extinction risk unfold in real time – Stokell’s smelt is a stark example. The promise of this reform is that clear, science-based limits could finally drive improvement. The risk is that those limits become negotiable or deferred at the very moment freshwater needs policy commitments that are durable, enforceable, and not easily traded away.
“The freshwater science community will be looking closely at how ecosystem health limits are calculated – will they uphold Te Mana o te Wai, align with existing NPS-FM attributes, and prevent trading off ecosystem health against short-term development? Any “less stringent limit where justified” is not merely a technical detail; it could effectively normalise further decline. Likewise, a “proportionate” approach sounds reasonable, yet freshwater degradation in Aotearoa has largely been cumulative, diffuse and acknowledged way too late. If limits are to be meaningful, they must come with high-resolution data, strong monitoring, mandatory restoration, and transparent compliance.
“There is also a justice question here: who benefits if freshwater protections are delayed, and who inherits the cost of continued decline? Rolling over consents and resetting the policy clock could lock in yesterday’s impacts while tomorrow’s communities – and taonga species – pay the price. If “regulatory relief” means the public compensates private landholders for protecting biodiversity, we risk inverting the polluter-pays principle at precisely the moment freshwater needs it most.
“At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that change is urgently needed. What we have done so far has not halted decline – but the national NPS-FM and Te Mana o te Wai framework is only just beginning to be implemented, and robust environmental protection takes time to embed. Replacing the system mid-stream risks losing the momentum we have only recently begun to build. It is also important to note that further freshwater national direction changes are signalled, which makes it difficult to fully assess the final implications of this reform until that detail is public.
“This reform could drive a step-change in freshwater protection – but that depends entirely on how limits are defined, whether they can be weakened, and whether independent freshwater science, mātauranga Māori, and intergenerational equity remain at the centre of decision-making rather than at the margins of development.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts to declare.”
Dr Jo Monks, President, Te Aka Toro | New Zealand Ecological Society, comments:
“Te Aka Toro | The New Zealand Ecological Society is deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to replace the Resource Management Act with the new Natural Environment and Planning Bills, marking a decisive shift away from environmental protection and toward prioritising private property rights. Most troubling is the introduction of “regulatory relief,” which effectively means councils may be required to compensate landowners—through direct payments, rates reductions, expert support, or expanded development rights—simply for applying standard environmental safeguards. We appear to be entering an era where public authorities must pay to prevent the loss of habitats and biodiversity, an approach that is both economically untenable and a profound reversal of long-standing policy.
“The Bills also downgrade the role of clear statutory purpose, instead offering multiple, often competing, goals that provide little guidance when development pressures clash with ecological limits. Alongside this, the new Bills are likely to exacerbate, rather than remedy, the cumulative impacts of small-scale effects by dispensing with almost half of the consents currently within scope of the Resource Management Act. Provisions for environmental limits contain some constructive elements, but their effectiveness is undermined by an emphasis on voluntary measures, and opportunities for councils to justify weaker standards.
“Public participation would also be significantly curtailed, with higher thresholds for notification and restrictive standing rules that exclude many organisations capable of contributing scientific expertise. While spatial planning and nationalised e-plan tools have merit, the overall package risks weakening biodiversity protection at precisely the time it needs strengthening.”
Conflict of interest statement: “None.”
Dr Pierre Roudier, President, New Zealand Society of Soil Science, comments:
“The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill aim to replace and address the shortcomings and inefficiencies of the Resource Management Act. The Natural Environment Bill, in particular, states that it aims to do so while safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of New Zealand soils, a commitment the New Zealand Society of Soil Science maintains is essential.
“As part of the standardisation proposed to improve the efficiency of the planning system, the new legislation will rely on a national suite of environmental limits that protect and maintain soil functions. The New Zealand Society of Soil Science will be watching closely to see how this assessment will be carried out. We hope that the soil science community will be widely consulted, as New Zealand soil scientists hold the domain knowledge required to develop effective and accurate soil quality indicators.
“The announcement also highlights the central role of “good [soil] data” in the new standardised system. We want to be clear that delivering on this point will require a significant investment in the national soil information infrastructure to improve both the quality and spatial coverage of the soil data underpinning the legislation.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Pierre Roudier is employed full-time by the Bioeconomy Science Institute as a Senior Scientist. He is also the current President of the NZ Society of Soil Science (NZSSS), and his commentary is provided from his perspective as President of the NZSSS.”
Associate Professor Linda Te Aho (Ngaati Koroki Kahukura, Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato), Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“Flooding the zone – kaitiakitanga under siege.
“The Coalition government continues to “flood the zone” with a relentless onslaught of legislative reform and policy announcements that have stripped references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation and confiscated Māori voices from key decision-making processes affecting matters that go the heart of our culture – our language, education, health and the environment.
“As evidenced in the acknowledgements and apologies embodied in the numerous Treaty of Waitangi settlements negotiated between the Crown and Māori, the colonial project in New Zealand has led to widespread loss and alienation of Māori land and assaulted the social and cultural fabric of Māori communities. This history is reflected in the disadvantage currently faced by Māori as compared with the non-indigenous population, across a range of indicators.
“The government is about to repeal the Resource Management Act 1991 (again). Māori have long argued that we should not be seen as barriers to development, or as problematic, but as kaitiaki. Kaitiaki are responsible for protecting lands and waters for present and future generations, with a particular obligation to protect distinctive and sacred sites, as affirmed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. To carry out this role effectively Māori have sought partnership and meaningful participation in decision-making – with some noteworthy success. The Resource Management Act (RMA) was world leading in its time. It prioritised sustainable management. It recognised the role of kaitiakitanga and provided opportunities for partnership (not just for those who are fortunate to have Treaty settlements) and directed that decisions take into account the principles of the Treaty (sections 6, 7 and 8).
“The cumulative effects of legislative reform are deeply disturbing. Kaitiakitanga is under siege. Changes to Fast Track processes, Regulatory Standards, provisions that affect conservation, the ability for Māori to successfully claim customary marine title and have a stronger voice in decisions that affect the takutai moana, and the ‘rebalancing’ of hierarchies in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (Te Mana o te Wai), pose serious threats to the health and wellbeing of our waterways, important ecosystems and the environment generally.
“Whilst there are still references to Māori interests and the Treaty in the proposed legislation, Iwi leaders (Pou Taiao) are concerned that the amendments will undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and their rights and interests and have joined forces to initiate court proceedings to challenge the resource management reforms.
“The main cause for concern is for te oranga o te taiao – the health and wellbeing of the environment. For some, there will be measures of protection enshrined in complex and sophisticated Treaty settlements that took years to negotiate, which are directly linked to specific provisions in the RMA. Comprehensive engagement is required to navigate the intricacies of each of the various Treaty settlements before wholesale changes are made to the RMA. Also of concern is the return to a paradigm of Māori being deliberately excluded from decision-making that affect our taonga – a right guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
“Illustrating that economic success and kaitiakitanga are not mutually exclusive, prominent Māori business leader, Rachel Taulelei has publicly stated:
“Our ambition is to be the best indigenous food and beverage business in the world… That means being driven, smart, and responsive to global consumer demands. Our anchor lies in remaining cognisant of our role as kaitiaki – ensuring deep care for our people, whenua and moana.”
“Kaitiakitanga – ensuring deep care for our people, our whenua, our moana. Kāore i kō atu i tērā.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I’m on the executive board for Waikato Tainui who is a party to litigation challenging the reforms. This may be perceived as a conflict.”
Dr Stacy Vallis, Lecturer in Architecture, Huri Te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments:
“Cities are often characterised by timelines of change. We urgently need to meet national needs for housing, better infrastructure, and stronger environmental protection in Aotearoa New Zealand. But as we work toward these goals, it’s also important to manage the special cultural heritage places that make our neighbourhoods unique.
“The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 focuses on creating cities that are safer, more resilient, and more inclusive for everyone. Standardising and streamlining existing planning processes should complement goals to enhance neighbourhood liveability, strengthened by the conservation of heritage buildings and sites.
“However, if heritage management is homogenised, we risk making our cities less vibrant and diverse. Therefore, it is also important that communities and stakeholders have sufficient time to review and respond to the proposed changes to Resource Management legislation.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Stacy Vallis is affiliated with the National Committee of the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Aotearoa New Zealand, but this comment does not represent the views of ICOMOS Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Professor Monty Sutrisna, Professor of Construction and Project Management, Massey University, comments:
“The RMA replacement is set to simplify and hence allowing for faster decision-making process, including in constructing buildings and infrastructure projects in New Zealand. If implemented
correctly, it holds the potentials to provide more certainty of future pipeline construction projects. From our construction sector’s perspective, this certainty may have the effect of reducing its boom-and-bust cycle. We are currently conducting a large research programme funded by the MBIE known as the CanConstructNZ aiming to model the pipeline projects “demand” against the capability and capacity of our construction sector “supply” to deliver those planned projects. Our findings show that certainty of future pipeline projects is one of the main challenges facing our construction sector.
“Another potential impact of the RMA replacement is the better planning of infrastructure needed (and when), with better alignment to our national priorities. A National Infrastructure Plan is being developed by the Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga. This plan is set at a very high level to set the direction of travel. A further detailed plan will be needed in the future. The CanConstructNZ research programme can contribute to that as we are building a dynamic model of New Zealand’s future pipeline projects and the dynamic model of our construction sector ability to deliver them within the constraints of shock and stresses experienced by our nation and the rest of the world.”
Conflict of interest statement: “None.”