Clare Wooding, Manager Sector Readiness, gives an update on where she and the team have gotten to with the Taituarā submission resource management reform.
It is a busy time in the reform space – we all knew what we were in store for when we got back to work after the Christmas break. This week I sent the draft Taituarā submission on the Planning Bill (PB) and the Natural Environment Bill (NEB) to the sector via LG Connect. I worked with members of the Resource Management Reference Group on the draft, and Simpson Grierson provided us with legal advice on key matters. Please send any feedback on the draft submission directly to me by close of business 4 February.
Our submission focuses on high-level matters. Taituarā supports reform of the resource management system (particularly the proposals for regional spatial plans), but we have highlighted some matters and risks that need to be addressed, and some proposals that we do not support at a principled level.
1. Legislative design
One fundamental issue we have identified is the artificial split of the “environment” into separate statutory domains, with land use effects addressed under the PB and natural environment effects addressed under the NEB. This division makes many real-world effects unmanageable under either regime, creates overlapping or conflicting obligations, and risks leaving significant adverse effects entirely unregulated. The Bills also exclude consideration of multiple effects at the consenting stage, creating disconnects between plan making, consenting, and enforcement. Without correction, these design flaws will generate litigation, uncertainty, and inconsistent decision-making across the country.
2. The timeline is unrealistic
The implementation timeline underpins the overall success of the reform. Our submission argues that national policy direction (NPD) , environmental limits, and standards all need to be established first, so that Regional Spatial Plans (RSPs) can be developed on a clear and consistent foundation. With these national instruments in place first, councils will be well-positioned to deliver high-quality, credible plans that reflect the intent of the new system. Taking the time to implement the reform carefully and comprehensively will help avoid unnecessary litigation or rework (based on subsequent NPD) and instead create an enduring system.
Establishing strong national direction and standards first, followed by giving councils adequate time to interpret and apply them through spatial, natural environment, and land use planning, will set the system up for long-term success. We crunched the numbers and included a timeframe in the submission that includes all the steps involved in preparing a RSP through to notification – as an “all going well” scenario. Our submission asks for 24 months from enactment to notification, rather than the 15 provided for in the PB.
3. Transition arrangements
The transition from the current RMA system to the new framework is shaping up to be incredibly complex. Councils will have to administer existing RMA plans that have been heavily modified by transitional rules and new effects tests – all while preparing for an entirely new system. We make the case that transitional national rules should be kept to a minimum; short-term changes that aren’t essential will divert already stretched resources away from preparing quality plans for the new system. It’s not just local government that will struggle – communities, iwi, developers and businesses will all have to navigate a complex interim regime.
4. Regulatory relief is fundamentally flawed and is uncosted
The proposed regulatory relief regime is one of the most troubling aspects of the Bills. As currently designed, it is conceptually vague and operationally impractical. Key terms like “reasonable use” and “significant impact” are undefined. Appeal pathways overlap, and councils could be exposed to open-ended financial liabilities.
Even more concerning, the regime conflicts with councils’ existing statutory responsibilities.
We suggest the regime should be removed or substantially redesigned, with clear thresholds, defined terms, prospective application, and without shifting Crown obligations and costs onto local authorities and ratepayers.
5. The Bills weaken Te Tiriti obligations and require amendment
The Bills dilute the RMA’s longstanding protections for Māori interests by removing key principles and replacing them with lower-level participation requirements. The Treaty settlement provisions risk compelling councils to reinterpret Crown settlement arrangements, an inappropriate transfer of Crown responsibilities. We argue that clear obligations to uphold Te Tiriti principles, provision for Māori interests, and respect for the integrity of Treaty settlements must be restored.
6. The system isn’t aligned with other reforms
Local government will concurrently implement water service reform, the new emergency management framework, changes to development levies, and potential structural reforms to local government, alongside proposed rates caps. The PB and NEB are not adequately integrated with these reforms, generating significant resource and cost pressures.
Estimated implementation costs for local government exceed $860 million just for establishment. An additional $82 million is estimated over four years linked to the new Emergency Management framework plus implementation costs for building reform and potential costs arising from wider local government reform.
Critically, we still don’t know how much of this will actually be funded by Government. With councils operating in a fiscally constrained environment, and facing possible mandatory caps on rates increases, this uncertainty poses a very real risk to implementation. This is a point that is also being made in our responses to Simplifying Local Government and the so-called ‘rates model’,
If you would like a copy of our draft submission please contact me directly at clare.wooding@taituara.org.nz
Communication and assistance around the reform is ongoing at Taituarā – our next webinar on Implementing the new and amended RMA national direction will take place 24 February.
