Source: Radio New Zealand
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. (File photo) RNZ/Mark Papalii
Analysis – The coalition’s new resource management laws bear significant resemblance to the one the government repealed in 2023, after winning the election.
There are key differences, which appear to mostly be focused on pushing development harder, faster and with less consultation – and a philosophical focus on property rights.
But the main thrust of how the legislation works is based on the same principles as the model set out under Labour’s David Parker.
‘Very similar’ or ‘big differences’?
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has been leading the coalition’s changes, and on Tuesday acknowledged there were “some similarities, to be fair” with Labour’s approach but also some “big differences”.
“At the end of the day, there’s only so many ways to skin a cat, right,” he said.
“There have to be plans, there has to be consents and permits – it’s really just about … what the threshold is and how you work that stuff out. And ours is different.”
He listed a number of these differences:
- “The concept of goals and objectives” trying to get the system to be more positively focused about what the system is trying to do is there as well … we have not gone for the huge degree of complexity and uncertainty that [Labour’s] purpose clauses would have created”.
- “They weren’t interested in doing local government reform at the same time, whereas we are”.
- “The implementation of [Labour’s] was going to take around 10 years, whereas, as you know, ours is going to be about three”.
- “The regulatory relief components”.
- “The funnel that I talked about … getting the system focused much, much closer down at a consenting level, with the system funnelling down to an individual consent”.
He rejected the suggestion it might have been better to amend Labour’s legislation, rather than reinstating the “broken” RMA for another three years and starting over.
“I stand absolutely behind the decision to scrap … we started again for a reason, and I think we’ve ended up with a with a good outcome. Yeah, I absolutely think that was the right thing to do.”
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said to him Bishop’s system was “very similar to the law changes that they repealed … from what I can see there’s a heck of a lot of similarities.”
However, he also said he had “barely had a chance to even look at it” at that stage.
Regulatory relief or ‘takings’
One of those key differences is the increased focus on property rights – particularly with the introduction of a lower threshold for regulatory takings.
This means councils would be required to compensate landowners, including through rates remission, land swaps, cash payments, development rights and other measures.
This would apply to:
- land-based indigenous biodiversity and significant natural areas
- significant historic heritage including sites of significance to Māori
- outstanding natural features and landscapes
- areas of high natural character in coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and rivers and their margins
Councils would have to provide relief where there is “significant impact on the reasonable use of land” in their plans.
It would be up to local councils to develop a framework for how to provide that relief, including definitions for what impact is considered significant, and how much cost it would impose.
Bishop said compensation would not be paid to people who had purchased the property when the regulations were already in place.
He said how councils could afford the compensation if a future government changed the national plans was “something we’ll need to work through”, given the new 4 percent rates caps.
Labour’s approach did not propose to dramatically change the RMA’s approach to compensating landowners, which is limited to extreme scenarios where land is considered incapable of reasonable use.
National-level planning
In both versions of the reforms, there are two main pieces of resource management legislation – one focused on planning and the other focused on environmental management.
Both propose to make more use of national-level documents setting out the government’s priorities, which can be changed by ministers.
Bishop’s plan uses national policy statements and “national standards” – another instrument which is also already in use and sets out standardised planning provisions, rules and methods. The first suite is expected to arrive by the end of 2026, with a second suite due mid-2027.
The Labour version envisioned a unified “National Planning Framework” combining more than 20 national policy statements and other government documents. They began consultation on the first NPF in September 2023.
This included a 44-page chapter on infrastructure written by the independent Infrastructure Commission.
It also planned to make more use of national standards, envisaging a range of “off-the-shelf” consent processes that councils would be able to use.
A key difference here: the coalition’s approach also specifically plans to standardise zoning, reducing the 1175 current zones down to a nationally consistent set laid out by central government.
Regional level planning with less consenting
The latest reforms set out a reduction in planning from more than 100 to just 17 – each of which would have three components:
- a regional spatial plan, prepared by regional councils
- land-use plans for each district or city
- a natural environment plan
The regional and natural environment plans would be prepared by regional councils – although the government’s abolition of regional councillors means this task will be taken on by the new boards made up of city and district mayors.
The land use plans would be prepared by city and district councils.
In contrast, Labour’s approach would have had each of 15 regions producing two separate plans each, a total of 30:
- A Regional Spatial Strategy
- A Natural and Built Environment plan
These would have been prepared by Regional Planning Committees with members from councils, central government, and at least two appointed by local Māori.
In both cases, the National-level plans would be the benchmark, with regional-level planning taking the national rules into account.
Both approaches also aim to reduce the amount of consenting work required by making far more activities “permitted”.
Bishop’s approach estimates up to 46 percent of current consenting could be done away with. Parker did not provide an estimate.
Parker’s approach would have cut the regional planning process down from 10 years to four, Bishop expects he can get it down to two years.
Both systems also highlight a need for stronger enforcement compared to the RMA, but neither reached final decisions on how this would be carried out.
Environmental protections
Both systems would shift from the RMA’s approach of focusing on the effects of a given development on the area, to a system that uses “environmental limits” set out in the national direction documents.
These limits would set out maximum levels for safe water quality, air pollution, noise and the like which planning would need to take into account.
In both systems, breaching these targets would require a plan to get the problem under control – bringing a stream up to swimmable quality, for instance.
Savings, timeframes and page-counts
The coalition approach estimates $13.3b in savings over 30 years from 2026; the Labour approach was expected to save $10b over 30 years – ramping up from 2023.
There is a stark difference in how long it would take to get each system up to speed, however: Bishop aims to have his fully up and running by the end of 2029.
Parker’s plan would have rolled out to three regions first, to stress-test the system before implementing it nationally.
In opposition, National heavily criticised Parker’s approach as introducing bills totalling a similar page-count to the current RMA.
Parker’s version after introduction was just one page shy of the total for the RMA at 891 pages, but by the time the two bills passed final readings they totalled 1004 pages.
The current RMA has since grown too – to 996 pages.
Bishop’s two bills combined currently sit at 744 pages.
Purpose and goals
The goals of the coalition’s legislation identified as a difference from Labour’s approach include:
- ensuring land use does not unreasonably affect others
- supporting economic growth
- creating well-functioning urban and rural areas
- enabling competition by making land available for current and expected business and housing demand
- planning and providing for infrastructure
- maintaining public access for coastlines, lakes and rivers
- protecting from inappropriate development of certain areas including bodies of water, historical and natural sites
- safeguarding communities from natural hazards
- providing for Māori interests through participation in the development of national instruments, spatial planning, and land use plans, and identification and protection of land and sites of significance to Māori
Māori involvement
The current RMA included a general clause requiring the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be taken into account.
Labour’s replacement would have stepped this up by requiring the Crown to “give effect to” the principles, and set up a new six-member “National Māori Entity” to monitor the government’s Treaty responsibilities under the system.
It would have also required consultation with relevant iwi and hapū, which would also have been able to provide statements about the wellbeing of the environment at any time.
The coalition’s legislation takes things in the other direction, with specific provisions that relate to the Crown’s Treaty obligations with “descriptive, non-operative” Treaty of Waitangi clauses.
As with Labour’s plan, it would also require Māori land and sites of significance to be identified and protected, and would provide participation for Māori in developing the national instruments and regional plans.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand