Much maligned RMA replaced by two new bills

Thursday, 12 March 2026

Submissions on the proposed legislation to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), have now closed and industry leaders all say while they support replacing the act, changes are needed.

Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop introduced his planning reform package to the House in December which proposed the replacing the much-maligned RMA with two new bills, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which are designed to separate land-use planning from environmental protection.

The Planning Act will focus on land-use planning and regulation. It will enable the urban and infrastructure development New Zealand needs and will align with the Government’s Going for Housing Growth plan and the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan.

The Natural Environment Act will focus on the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment. This includes our: land, air, freshwater, coastal and marine water and other natural resources.

DairyNZ says the Government’s proposed RMA reform needs further work to ensure it delivers on its intent. Chairperson Tracy Brown said reform was needed, but it needed to be done right.

“We fully support the need for change, but it needs to be practical for farmers and beneficial for the environment,' she says.

Brown says reducing complexity, fewer consents, more consistency, and better recognition of the non-regulatory work farmers are already doing, are things DairyNZ strongly support.

“However, after reviewing the legislation and talking to farmers there are some significant concerns that need to be looked at.

“The proposed changes to permitted activities make things more onerous for farmers. We need clear and practical permitted activity rules for low impact farming activities like grazing, track maintenance, and stand-off pads.

“We also have concerns about how environmental limits will be set. We want to ensure they are based on environmental outcomes such as ecosystem health which are achievable and effective in a real working catchment.”

Horticulture New Zealand (HortNZ) says major changes are required to proposed replacement of the RMA and is urging the Government to strengthen the draft legislation warning that without key changes the new system could make it harder - not easier - for growers to produce fruit and vegetables.

“Replacing the RMA is long overdue, and we back the Government’s ambition to create a system that is simpler, faster and less expensive,” HortNZ chief executive Kate Scott says.

“But the current drafting does not yet match that promise. Along with the rest of the primary sector, we are working hard to ensure the new system genuinely delivers fewer consents, lower compliance costs and better conditions for food production and rural development.

“What’s at stake is the ability of New Zealand growers to continue producing nutritious fruit and vegetables for New Zealanders and our global markets, while also supporting tens of thousands of regional jobs and maintaining the country’s strong export earnings.

Scott says HortNZ has significant concerns about proposals in the Natural Environment Bill that could introduce what amounts to a tax or auction system for natural resources such as water.

“The Bill includes options for market-based allocation or levies. In practice, market-based allocation could mean auctions or tenders where water, or the ability to discharge nutrients, goes to the highest bidder.

“A levy would effectively be a tax on water or on farming activity. That is not the right approach for food production.”

She says they are also concerned about how the Bill would affect growers operating in over allocated catchments - areas where freshwater quality is worse than the target states.

“The draft Bill would not allow permitted activities in any over allocated catchments, which is more restrictive than the RMA, requiring consenting for many horticultural activities that are currently permitted because they have a low environmental impact.

“We need a sensible pathway that allows food production to continue while still driving ongoing environmental improvement.”

HortNZ is particularly concerned about how the two Bills expect spatial planning, environmental limits and resource allocation to interact.

“The legislation currently has spatial planning happening first, before limits are set or resources like water are allocated.

“In our view, it doesn’t make sense to zone land as highly productive or set it aside for food production without also ensuring growers can access the water and discharge pathways needed to actually grow on that land.”

Federated Farmers says while it supports the intent of the Government’s resource management overhaul, a deep dive into the draft legislation has revealed some serious concerns.

Most concerning are provisions allowing freshwater rights to be auctioned, tendered, or levied - effectively enabling freshwater to be taxed, says Federated Farmers RMA reform spokesperson Mark Hooper.

Hooper says there is ‘absolutely no way’ we’re going to support any laws that open the door to taxing water.

'A water tax would be a nightmare for farmers and growers, undermining confidence in our productive sectors and pulling a handbrake on economic growth.

'The Government needs to move quickly and strike out any wording that would allow water rights to be auctioned, tendered, levied or taxed.'

Hooper says Federated Farmers welcomed the Government’s earlier commitment to compensation when restrictive overlays - such as Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Significant Natural Areas - are imposed on farms.

'But now, when we read the draft legislation, we’re seeing a compensation regime that’s much more uncertain than many expected.

'It relies on proving a ‘significant impact on the reasonable use of land’, which means compensation could be very limited and will ultimately depend on how future court cases interpret that threshold.'

In its submission on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill as part of Resource Management Act reforms, B+LNZ has called for significant changes because the current wording in the legislation does not match the Government’s intent.

Chairperson Kate Acland says B+LNZ supports the Government’s proposals as the existing system is expensive, complex and becoming mired in litigation.

“We welcome the intent to enable primary sector growth and development, reduce the need for consents, make more activities permitted and reduce litigation.

“However, as we have said since it was released, the way the legislation is currently written is missing the mark and farmers could be worse off.”

There are several critical areas where the wording in the proposed legislation does not match the intent.

“The language is more stringent around setting and managing limits and would likely see the need for more consents, not less.

“There are more onerous requirements on permitted activities.

“The lack of appropriate guardrails on the exercise of Ministerial and council powers in many areas and the lack of requirement to consider costs and benefits could result in significant economic impacts.

“We also do not support the introduction of market-based allocation or levies for resource use, and are concerned that the same farming activity will now fall between two Acts and make the process for farmers more complicated and costly.

“These are just some of our concerns around the legislation, so we’re pushing hard for changes,” Acland says.

Working on behalf of anglers and game bird hunters, Fish & Game New Zealand says the new laws need to recognise valued introduced species.

Fish & Game made a submission on the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill which sets out the specific changes needed to ensure the new laws work as intended — protecting the habitats, waterways, and public access that anglers and hunters rely on.

“We support replacing the RMA and we want this reform to succeed,” chief executive Corina Jordan says.

“But the Bills as drafted make it much harder for trout, salmon, and other valued introduced species to be protected. They define ecosystem health solely around indigenous species, which means environmental limits can’t be set with trout and salmon habitat in mind.”

Both bills passed the first reading and were expected to become law by mid-2026.