Resource Management Act reforms: Chris Bishop tells councils to stop plan changes
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop holding up a copy of the RMA. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Chris Bishop has told councils to stop changing their plans, saying that plan changes ahead of the Government's Resource Management Act reforms will only waste ratepayers' money.
Bishop, the Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform Minister, said the Government will 'suspend councils' mandatory RMA requirements to undertake plan and regional policy statement reviews every 10 years, and the requirement to implement national planning standards'.
'We will also extend the restriction on notifying freshwater planning instruments which we put in place last year,' he said.
This will take some of the burden off councils to change their plans ahead of the new RMA system taking effect in 2027.
'The Resource Management Act has crippled New Zealand for decades, and the Government's planning system reforms are well under way to make it easier to get things done in New Zealand,' Bishop said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
20 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Towards a system that respects property rights: tidy tweaks or real change?
Yet beneath these improvements lies a fundamental question. Are they stepping stones toward the Government's promised property-rights-based system, or just necessary patches stuck on a fundamentally flawed framework? The infrastructure and development package demonstrates coherent reform. It recognises that efficient infrastructure and housing supply are prerequisites for a functioning society. New national standards for electricity networks, telecommunications, and renewable energy would sweep away inconsistent local rules that add significant time and cost for infrastructure projects – $1.3 billion a year in consenting costs alone, according to the Infrastructure Commission. New standards could cut $1.3 billion in annual infrastructure consenting costs. The proposed standards for granny flats could unlock thousands of affordable housing options. The freshwater reforms show promise by abandoning a rigid environmental hierarchy that has paralysed decision-making. The current approach of 'environment-first' (and arguably second, third and fourth) prevents councils from properly weighing economic and social benefits against environmental costs. It has created regulatory straitjackets that are not working, pleasing no one. Replacing this with objectives that treat environmental, social, and economic factors equally represents a crucial shift toward a balanced approach. Proposals to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai would reduce layers of assessment that add uncertainty, time and cost to freshwater management. Removing its rigid hierarchy of obligations and principles and its extra layers of policy and decision-making processes would mean freshwater would revert to being managed like any other natural resource under the RMA. Resource management changes promise infrastructure, freshwater balance. Photo / Tania Whyte It would let councils better balance economic development with environmental protection. Crucially, it would restore the regulatory certainty businesses and farms need to invest, expand, and create jobs. An alternative to heavy-handed regulation would allow market-based instruments to align private incentives with public objectives. Rather than mandating specific outcomes through complex rules and stifling processes, pricing mechanisms and tradeable permits could achieve superior environmental results while preserving choice and encouraging innovation. Making more use of them would revolutionise not only freshwater management but also biodiversity protection and urban development. Other elements of the packages reveal some contradictions. The continuation of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land, even with modest changes, exemplifies how good intentions are inconsistent with broader policy goals. While food production is of course important, the policy artificially constrains land use on urban fringes where housing growth naturally occurs. The irony is stark. A Government committed to property rights as the foundation of resource management simultaneously maintains regulations that prevent landowners from responding to market signals or pursuing their highest-value land use. The restrictions not only inflate housing costs but also demonstrate an assumption that politicians and bureaucrats can better determine land use than property owners themselves. Balancing reform goals with property rights in NZ. These policy choices matter. Property rights create incentive structures that drive innovation, investment, and responsible stewardship. When regulations unduly constrain these rights, particularly without compensation, they generate perverse outcomes that can harm both economic efficiency and environmental quality. The current consultation is also silent on compensation for regulatory takings. When national direction significantly constrains landowners' development rights, affected parties should not bear the full cost of delivering public benefits. International experience offers various models for addressing this fundamental fairness issue, from statutory compensation triggers to targeted buyout schemes. Chances to tweak a bad system should of course be taken, but they will remain patches on a bad system. Comprehensive reform in the form of RMA replacement remains crucially important. Minister Chris Bishop's speech to Local Government New Zealand's conference yesterday shows the Government is still committed, which is reassuring. In the meantime, the test of any interim tweaks should be simple: do they enhance or erode the principles that will govern the replacement system? On this measure, the specific proposals largely point in the right direction, but some could be better. After many attempts to fix the RMA, New Zealand once again stands at a resource management crossroads. The path toward property rights, market mechanisms, and genuine choice remains open. Taking it would unlock decades of suppressed growth and innovative ways to improve the environment. Taking the other path would condemn New Zealand to more of the same dysfunction that has plagued us for a generation. It is a path we simply cannot afford to take.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Israel strikes Damascus after warning Syria over Druze violence
Israel bombed the Syrian army's headquarters in Damascus after warning the Islamist-led Government to leave the country's Druze minority alone, as authorities announced a ceasefire in the community's southern heartland after deadly sectarian clashes. Syrian government forces entered the majority-Druze city of Sweida on Tuesday with the stated aim of
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
I managed four MIQ hotels during Covid, it was a shambles – Les Morgan of Sudima
The truth is that the MIQ programme was a shambles from its inception and rose to a standard of passable quality thanks to the skills and professionalism of hotel staff and on-site supporting agencies. There is a lot we can learn collectively – and at a political and policy level – from this experience, so we can prepare properly and be able to kick into action more seamlessly in the event of a future pandemic. Here's what we learned on the front lines of the MIQ system: 1. Reinstate the plan. There was a low level of leadership and expertise within both local and central government in relation to our isolation response. As a country we should have been able to deploy and react to the crisis much more efficiently – in fact, we had already prepared for it. Several years before the pandemic I was a signatory to a document that had committed hotels in the area surrounding Auckland Airport to a pandemic and isolation plan. Some astute member of staff at Auckland Council and/or the local DHBs had anticipated and come up with a plan for what eventually happened. However, this plan was never implemented, so when the crisis hit, the response was made on the fly. I hope the inquiry looks at what happened there, and a plan is reinstated for another pandemic, as epidemiologists say is inevitable. 2. Establish a clear chain of command. On one occasion a local authority representative called to tell me they were commandeering one of our hotels for the purposes of isolation. The next day a military representative told me they intended to make the same request for the same purpose, meaning two potential government tenants were competing for the same hotel. On day three a police sergeant stated he had authority to occupy over all others. It was a classic example of the need for state agencies to co-ordinate their plans, hold a meeting of key stakeholders and share information. There is nothing new about hotels being taken over as field hospitals, quarantine facilities or emergency care or accommodation sites – it's standard operating procedure in times of civic upheaval – but it must be underpinned by an organised process. Any future pandemic response must be preceded by the agreement of a chain of command determining who decides on the assignation of facilities that the Government is paying to commandeer and run. 3. Set up a communication matrix with hotel operators at the centre. A few weeks into the crisis, some harmonisation of MIQ facilities appeared to have been achieved. However, that illusion was shattered one day as I watched the 1pm briefing and a minister announced that the Government was 'standing up' another MIQ hotel, with the first arriving travellers anticipated later that day. Unfortunately, there were a couple of issues with this – the hotel was ours, and no one had told me or any of my colleagues. The hotel in question had been closed indefinitely, meaning staff had moved on and there were no consumables or PPE gear on site. Once I had run the gauntlet of shock and bad language, our team swung into action and I am proud to say our local staff welcomed the first guests by 8pm the same day with full PPE equipment and comprehensive operational procedures. (The military and public health teams involved arrived on-site equally unprepared but also rallied.) These were staff who had left the business earlier in lockdown but came back to bravely face an unknown health risk and the enormous task of recommissioning a hotel, all because they thought it was the right thing to do to help save the lives of fellow New Zealanders. They are all heroes, and they deserve to be properly recognised by the Government. 4. Establish accountability, including on legal questions that affect business owners and directors. This was scarce during long stretches of MIQ. We observed that no one further up the chain of public sector leadership was willing to confirm the level of risk our employees faced. A parallel concern was the risk companies faced under the Health & Safety Act. If an employee was to fall seriously ill or die from Covid having been exposed to it while at work, would we as employers face legal proceedings in the future? We could not get clarification on this question, and therefore I viewed the risk to employees and our company directors as potentially too great, and at one point came within hours of making the decision to close completely the four nationwide facilities we managed. Although no formal instruction was ever issued, I was temporarily mollified by a statement from authorities that any legal action was unlikely. In the turmoil that was MIQ governance, I accepted that was as good an answer as we were ever likely to get. To return to a plan: this is the kind of question that can be assessed, considered by Crown Law and addressed in advance of a crisis, so that businesses can prepare. As the formal inquiry continues, I have doubts the valuable lessons from the MIQ experience have been fully learned by our officials. Today we are again signatories to a Readiness Programme that would permit re-establishment of isolation hotels. However, hotels are expected to maintain high-quality air conditioning and CCTV services without ongoing financial support. There is no requirement for mandatory pandemic training for staff, and no PPE stock is expected to be held on-site. My grave concern is that, over time, the IP that hotels earned through painful experience will erode. Let's not let this happen, and instead develop a Readiness Programme with real teeth, one that takes the hard lessons we all learned and embeds them in a practical, flexible model that consistently upskills people and stocks and supports facilities, so we can turn on a future crisis response as easily as flicking a switch.
