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: No declaration received.
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 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.”