The Government has finally presented two of the three new acts of Parliament needed to replace the Resource Management Act, which was passed in 1991 and amended thousands of times since then in failed attempts to reduce the cost and time to get consents for development from councils.
Government analysis of replacing the RMA estimated total costs over the next 30 years of $3.891b in present value terms, but potential benefits of $10.039b, including $7.5b in benefits from increasing housing supply to improve housing affordability.
The new regime will take 10 years to bed in and for the first year will only trial three 'model' regions, which have yet to be identified. The regime change will see 100 district plans reduced to 15 and the aim is to reduce the number of consents required by 40% per annum.
Environment Minister David Parker previewed this full replacement suite for the RMA in February 2021. And the two bills being introduced to Parliament this week and read for the first time next week are the Natural and Built Environment (NBA) and Spatial Planning (SPA) bills. They have been through an exposure draft process and more than a year of consultation with umpteen government departments, councils, iwi and business groups.
A third bill, the Climate Adaptation Act, is not expected to be introduced until next year and won't be enacted until 2024.
The broad outline of the reforms to replace the RMA were drafted in the Randerson Review started in 2019 and presented in report form in June 2020.
Parker presented the two bills to a 'lockup' of journalists and resource management lawyers and consultants in Parliament, arguing the current RMA system was broken. He identified 23 separate amendments to the 1991 legislation and thousands of smaller amendments that had not reduced the time and cost of consenting.
"They've not only increased complexity, they've also failed to make the improvements that we need," Parker said.
"Everyone's frustrated. Environmentalists, developers, councils, farmers and home builders," he said.
Parker pointed to how council consenting fees for notified consents had risen 124% between 2015 to 2019 and that mid-size project developers were now spending 5.5% of the project costs on consents, which was at the extreme end of international comparisons ranging from 0.1% of project costs to 5.0% of project costs. The Infrastructure Commission had estimated infrastructure developers were currently spending $1.29b per yer on resource consent processes. Decision-making times for infrastructure projects had blown out by 150% between 2010-14 and 2015-19.
The RMA's two major replacement acts, the NBA and SPA, will see the creation of regional spatial strategies (RSS) and regional plans within a National Planning Framework (NPF), the first of which will not be notified until 2023 and not published until 2025. The natural and built environment plans for each region will be developed by a new Regional Planning Committee (RPC).
These new committees will have at least six members, including two Māori members and one Government member, although the total size of the committees are not limited to six and each region can decide how many members it will need. The Government denied this was a form of 'co-governance'.
Opposition sceptical
Contrary to hopes the reforms might prove more durable across changes of Government, National came out with a very critical first statement. Acting Environment Spokesman Chris Bishop stopped short of saying a National-led Government would repeal it, but he said the proposed reforms would likely be worse than the current situation.
“National’s simple test on RMA reform is whether it will make it easier to get things done - like building the houses New Zealand desperately needs and addressing our infrastructure deficit – while pragmatically protecting the environment," Bishop said.
“We will be carefully considering the Bills but we are deeply sceptical that Labour’s reforms will meet this test. The new Bills will add yet more bureaucracy, add more complexity to the system, introduce significant legal uncertainty, and risk repeating the mistakes of the past," he said.
ACT Leader David Seymour was even more critical.
They even dusted off the same guy who did the RMA to design them,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Centralisation is unpopular because it often fails. The reality of this reform is that a new and more centralised bureaucracy will write plans with different headings, but the same basic content," Seymour said.
“Unfortunately, the NBE Act repeats the mistakes of the past. It is not clear who has the right to do what on their land and who has the right to object. That means projects will still be held up by years of hearings, appeals, consultants’ reports, and iwi consultations," he said.
Even the Greens weren't happy, saying the Government had missed an opportunity to redesign the system with climate and nature at its heart, and had mistakenly taken a view that there was a trade-off between quality infrastructure and good environmental outcomes.
“Over the next 30 years we will need to build new warm, dry, energy efficient housing; more renewable energy capacity; and more carbon-zero transport options like rail. At the same time we need to protect and restore coastal and estuarine areas, remaining wetlands, native shrublands, forests and waterways," said Green Environment Spokeswoman Eugenie Sage.
39 Comments
There're at least 100 analysts working on the leg. It's so big, it's likely that all the people working on it don't know each other's names, let alone be able to understand how the different parts work.
I'm pretty certain they didn't come to the reform with an attitude of blue skies thinking. It's more tinkering than wholesale change. The Randerson report was underwhelming in its ambition.
Another example of trying to rush through legislation that needs a high degree of project management to ensure cohesion between all moving parts in the process. Sadly this isn't something the current regime have a good track record of, despite the large increase in govt employees.
The only change they failed to get through were changes to S5 - the Act's purpose. And yes, neither United Future nor Māori Party would vote for it. Key's National government made a number of other amendments that were passed - most of which did indeed complicate things... like the new provisions to prevent blanket tree protections.
Maybe it's designed to report on the main talking point out of the RMA 'reform' is that it's going to take an assload of time? FWIW it's entirely predictable given how much National had to deal to Auckland Council over the Unitary Plan and then again with Labour and the UPS that they're still stuffing around on. So to anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of planning, this isn't going to be something that angries up the blood too much.
I'd be more concerned if it didn't take years and years tbh.
Agreed. The underlying issue here of fiefdoms in council planning depts is a huge problem that also needs resolving before these RMA changes come down the line. Otherwise we will have councils cherry picking the bits they like and ignoring the bits their backers do not.
Given the cozy relationship between LGNZ and the current Govt over 3 Waters, I'm not sure there's an effective vehicle to tackle that anymore.
The RMA's two major replacement acts, the NBA and SPA, will see the creation of regional spatial strategies (RSS) and regional plans within a National Planning Framework (NPF), the first of which will not be notified until 2023 and not published until 2025.
Yet more closed-door government, so much for being an open government.
Will be rolled back like so much other legislation after next year's election. Its all hands to the pump at MfE to get this stuff over the line by next election, but they're short staffed and well behind, and it will be a half a*sed job anyway. Another Labour fail. Ironic as Labour and Geoffrey Palmer were behind the RMA and a key principle was centralisation into one planning act, now we've come full circle and splitting into 3.
MfE short staffed??!! That’s the funniest thing I have heard for quite some time.
The issue there is certainly not staffing. It’s the lack of leadership, the lack of direction, the fundamental lack of expert knowledge and the muddled thinking. A massive issue there too, like all ministries, is the lack of ability to provide frank advice to the minister. Senior staff who think outside the square either don’t last there, or don’t go there in the first place. And it’s a minister who is arrogant and has very set views on things, which are often very ill informed.
The place is full of generic policy wonks. There’s lots of them, plenty of resource. However very little depth of environmental expertise.
Given the huge amount of resource they have (putting aside the *quality* of that resource) what they have released today is a pitiful effort. Indeed, I know someone who is going to take this to the Auditor General’s office.
Truly breathtaking
Have you looked at the Bill? Large chunks of it are cut and paste from the RMA.
Some wishy washy ‘new’ outcomes which are really just RMA rehash.
And an ambiguous and unworkable new section on determining adversely affected parties and notification.
True debacle.
HM - perfectly stated.
I sat opposite Parker a long time ago (he and newbie Clark were meeting 3 of us representing Solar Action; a physics/energy Prof, a designer of windmills and me). We explained EROEI to him (this would be pre 2010!) and he just said "I can't believe we can't run the NZ economy on lignite". I decided he wasn't part of the solution.
Nice man - one of the nicest in the bizzo. Ability to either grasp the predicament, or to show the leadership to deal with it? Nil, it appears. My long-ago appraisal still looks valid.
A massive issue there too, like all ministries, is the lack of ability to provide frank advice to the minister
I would say that there is plenty of advice being given to the ministers, what I would love to see is a record of the advice vs the ministerial decisions as there is a trend in parliament since 2020 of ministers not listening to the advice they are given and simply doing what they wanted all along. But the likelihood of the govt releasing that under the OIA is questionable at best
So estimated current spend is $1.29 billion p.a. by infrastructure developers but the new Acts will save $2.5 billion over 30 years - sounds like a bad deal unless there is serious environmental benefits that have not yet been revealed
or have I misunderstood something?
Strong criticism across the political spectrum sums up the real failure of this Bill. It’s a Bill that tries to please everyone but fundamentally fails to please anyone. The concerns and criticism of ‘The Right’ are obvious and understandable but so are those of the Greens if you know anything about the content of the Bill.
You only need to look at the architect of this bill to realise it will be a total CF! The hideous reality of MMP coming home to roost! Parker is one of the most dangerous, arrogant government ministers and nobody voted for him! Planners will love this - they will be able to hold up consents for even longer. And that's before Shaw even utters a word on the subject. Allowing the Greens to draft policy will absolutely guarantee an outcome that is totally unworkable.
DD - try to dis-invest your vested interest, and do some unbiased, first-principles, pragmatic homework.
Yes, Parker is on the wrong track. No, you - by the sound of your anger - aren't either.
Both attitudes come from a recent time of growth, done by drawing-down planetary stocks of everything, as fast as was possible. That era is leaving us, due to the state of said stocks - nothing anyone can do about that. How we live from here on, and what, exactly, we hand on to our grandchildren, is the pertinent question.
Totally unasked - by the Opposition, by the media, even by academia.
Sapient was a self-aggrandising title, self-applied. It is looking like we weren't/aren't.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.