Angus Kebbell notes the simplification and 'reform' of the RMA and related legislation will benefit urban housing, but fails to see how any of this rolls back over-regulation of rural New Zealand

This week is my observations on the Resource Management Act, and next week my normal format will return. Last year the Resource Management Act reform with Spatial Planning and Natural and Built Environment bills was introduced to Parliament.

The Spatial Planning and Natural and Built Environment bills now aim to simplify the contents of the RMA, the RMA has grown in size significantly over the years and is cumbersome to put it mildly.

A third piece of legislation, the Climate Adaptation Act, is expected to be introduced to Parliament this year, and the Ministry for the Environment says key reforms in the RMA would see planning for positive outcomes, not just managing adverse effects.

It said it would enable integrated and strategic long-term planning for transport, infrastructure, housing, climate resilience, and environmental protection. Ministry for the Environment said the bills would allow for a stronger, more consistent national policy direction. So how does this affect our councils?

Minister for the Environment David Parker said the cost of consenting was increasing, with council fees for notified consents more than doubling between 2015 and 2019.
Parker said costs for mid-sized infrastructure projects were up 70 per cent in the same period.

"New Zealand developers’ consenting costs of 5.5 per cent of total project costs are at the extreme end compared with the UK and the EU, where consenting costs are between 0.1 per cent and 5 per cent."

He said the time to grant consents for infrastructure projects had increased by 150 per cent over the past decade.

“Everyone is frustrated – environmentalists, developers, councils, farmers, home builders, and there is cross-party support for the need to repeal and replace the RMA.”

So how does this affect farming in New Zealand?

Many members of the rural sector have criticised the government for what is perceived as a constant flow of reforms, the Ministry for Environment said the reforms would make room for a regional and collaborative approach to planning, along with a more consistent national direction.

Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor said the bills aimed to reduce reliance on consenting and provide clearer direction for farmers and the agricultural sector. He says the current system took too long, cost too much, and did not adequately provide for development or manage environmental effects.

“The shortcomings of the RMA are well known.” O’Connor said the bills would introduce clearer environmental limits and greater use of permitted activities that would not require consent.

But does the proposed replacement to the RMA do anything for farmers? Certainly streamlining urban development suits the expansion of Urban areas but I can’t see anything in proposed changes to the RMA that will ultimately see less red tape for New Zealand farmers. What is clear is that the government has gone out of its way to emphasise there would be fewer resource consents for infrastructure and housing. But what about farming? Where is the relief on red tape? All we are seeing from current policy makers is increased red tape for our farmers, and this negatively impacts not only individual farming businesses and wellbeing but rural communities, jobs and ultimately export revenue for this country.

Listen to the podcast to hear the full story

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.