The year 2025 has delivered a whirlwind of legislative change, but the introduction of the Planning Bill 2025 and the Natural Environment Bill 2025 to Parliament on 9 December is the definitive landmark. For over thirty years, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has been the bedrock of our industry. Yet, as anyone in the trenches knows, that bedrock has been shifting and cracking for a long time.
Coinciding with the introduction of the two new Bills on 9 December, The Ministry for the Environment also published Better planning for a better New Zealand. The publication explains the full “what, why, and how” of the overhaul, and is important reading to understand the full scope of the changes. It also contains helpful illustrations of how the new system will operate and also comparisons to how it is different to the current system.
The Fundamental Flaw: One Test to Rule Them All
Having worked in this industry for close to 20 years, I have long felt that the RMA’s “integrated” approach was fundamentally flawed. It was something I discussed at length during my NZPI full interview all those years ago. It is simply strange that the same piece of legislation, applying the exact same regulatory tests, dealt with both highly sensitive environments (such as our beautiful coastlines) and a simple house extension in an established suburb.
The “effects-based” assessment under the RMA treats almost all impacts with a similar level of scrutiny. For example, the test for “more than minor” effects can be applied to the removal of significant native vegetation in the same way it is applied to the shading caused by a suburban second-storey addition. By using a singular threshold for such vastly different contexts, the system created a “Labyrinth of Red Tape” where minor urban matters were elevated to the same level of legal contention as major environmental risks.
An Overgrown System: Why Successive Tinkering Failed the RMA
The RMA was originally influenced by the concept of “deep ecology,” a philosophical perspective that rejects the idea of people being superior to nature. Instead, it views people as an intrinsic, interconnected part of the biosphere. This mirrors many indigenous worldviews, including Te Ao Māori, where the health of the people is inseparable from the health of the land and water. This “one-ness” was the visionary core of the 1991 version.
However, the RMA has been changed so many times that it is barely recognisable. Today’s physical copy is roughly twice the size of the original version. These reactive changes were attempts to fix systemic shortcomings, but if the foundation is not right, no amount of tinkering will deliver a much needed long-term solution. I believe it is essential that the NEB retains the core principle of Kaitiakitanga (guardianship), ensuring that the life-supporting capacity of our ecosystems is protected through binding “Environmental Limits” rather than being traded away through a series of “minor” compromises.
Planning Bill: Restoring Sanity to Urban Growth
The Planning Bill 2025 focuses on the use and enjoyment of land, aiming to unlock development capacity for housing and infrastructure. For too long, urban planning has suffered from unnecessary complexity and a “consenting lottery” where outcomes depended on which council officer picked up the file.
The new framework operates on a “funnel” logic: once high-level goals are set in the National Policy Direction, they are fixed. This stops the endless relitigation of the same issues at the local level and places a higher “burden of proof” on councils before they can restrict land use. Key shifts include:
- Narrowed Scope: Subjective matters like “visual amenity,” architectural style, and internal building layouts are largely removed from council regulation.
- Reduced Objections: The Bill aims to prevent “frivolous” objections that have long held developers to ransom.
- The Planning Tribunal: A new fast-track dispute resolution body intended to provide a practical, lower-cost alternative to the Environment Court for notification and administrative disputes.
I have seen the “ransom” effect firsthand. In a recent case, Auckland Council notified nearly 70 neighbours for a project that was actually under the density enabled by the plan: a proposal for 14 two- and three-storey standalone houses on a triple-frontage corner site suited for five-storey apartments. Despite support from at least ten professionals on both sides, it took over a year from the point the council planner recommended approval to when the hearing commissioners finally granted consent.
The applicant faced the risk of protracted litigation and massive costs simply because of neighbour fear-mongering. Ultimately, they were effectively forced into amending several technically sound aspects of the development solely to quell neighbour concerns that lacked any substance or technical justification; the alternative was to face years of defending the development in court. By raising the notification threshold to “significant” effects, the new Bill should help restore balance to this process.
Economic Realities and the “Technical Ground Rules”
The government’s case for this reform is backed by analysis projecting $13.3 billion in savings over 30 years and a 46% reduction in required consents. For our clients, this means a move from over 100 council plans to just 17 Regional Combined Plans.
The Bills have passed their first reading and are now with the Select Committee, with a report due by 26 June 2026. While the legislative framework is a massive step forward, the real “technical ground rules” will be contained within the National Policy Direction and National Standards.
When I talk about the “rules”, I mean the specific, technical standards that central government will set for the whole country. These documents will dictate exactly how housing goals are prioritised and how environmental limits are measured. Until these are finalised in late 2026, we have the “bones” of a new system, but the “muscles”, the actual rules we will use every day to get consents across the line, are still being formed.
A New Chapter
This legislative shift represents the professional reset New Zealand has required for a generation. By finally decoupling urban development from natural resource management, we will move away from a culture of reactive tinkering toward a system of strategic clarity.
These reforms are the engine room for our future economic progress. By establishing a stable environment where speed of approval and certainty of outcome are the baseline expectations, the development sector will finally be able to function with confidence. The transition to this dual-bill system provides the necessary framework to deliver the infrastructure and housing our communities desperately need, while simultaneously honouring our role as guardians of our natural treasures. We are moving toward an Aotearoa that prioritises decisive action, rewards investment with predictability, and ensures that our growth is both rapid and resilient. This is the path to a more prosperous and certain future for all New Zealanders.
By Chris Walsh – Director | Principal Planning Consultant at Tripp Andrews
