The verdict on freshly announced plans for the replacement of resource management came in a swirl of words.
Minister for Resource Management Reform and Infrastructure Chris Bishop and ACT's Simon Court had just delivered a speech to hundreds of resource management lawyers at their annual conference.
The speech outlined changes to laws which control all manner of development, from massive infrastructure projects, to activities everyday New Zealanders might undertake on their properties. The crowd heard that the 900 pages of the current Resource Management Act (RMA), which attempts to balance development and the environment, will be thrown out, in favour of two new acts.
When asked to give a one-word reaction to the sweeping changes outlined in the speech, lawyers in the room typed their responses into the conference app. The words appeared on the big screen in a constantly refreshing word cloud.
"Naive, was one of the big ones that came up," says Erika Tolman, Forest & Bird's acting general counsel, who attended the event.
"Challenging" was another that made it to the screen, as was "ambitious". More positive responses were "opportunity", "promising" and "cautiously optimistic". One glowing response of "AMAZING" was given in all capital letters.
These were tempered by less positive reactions. "Underwhelming", "misguided", "worrying", "ill-conceived", "flip flop", "loose", "deja vu", "pessimistic", "vintage", "contradicting", "Toitū Te Tiriti", "inchoate" and "angry" also made appearances.
The changes announced were significant and the pace to get them done, breakneck. The stated goal is to have the new acts in place before the next election rolls around in 2026.
"I would say the time frames are very worrying, actually, because this stuff takes a long time. It needs proper thought put into it and rushing lawmaking, especially lawmaking that will affect us for generations and our environment for generations, is not a good idea," Tolman says.
Bishop told conference attendees: "It's too hard to build a house. It's too hard to build roads, water and other infrastructure. It's too hard to secure the energy we need, including from renewables. High compliance costs have not always delivered the environmental outcomes we all want. The RMA protects the environment by resisting growth."
New Zealand needs a system which protects the environment by setting limits that growth can occur within, Bishop said.
The speech set out the third and final phase of changes. The completed phase one involved repealing two existing bits of legislation. Phase two involves significant tinkering by amending several bits of legislation and introducing the Fast-track Approvals Bill. The third phase is the most ambitious, replacing the RMA with two new acts. One of these would likely be focused on development and the other on the environment.
For lawyers listening to the speech, several questions remained unanswered.
Tolman says the speech represented high level ideas, with "a lot of it based on anecdotes of worst case scenarios."
"There are a lot of people scratching their heads and thinking how on earth is that going to work?"
Enjoyment of property rights
The guiding principle of the new resource management system is the "enjoyment of property rights". A fact sheet provided by Bishop's office explained this as allowing people to do more on their own property as long as it doesn't harm others.
Environmental Defense Society CEO Gary Taylor is not convinced this is as simple as it sounds.
"I'm not sure they know what property rights means yet. There are property rights individuals have. Arguably, there are property rights embedded in our environment. We have rivers that have property rights because they have legal personhood."
Interpretation of the principle might differ depending on whether a narrow or wide view is taken. Taking a narrow view where individuals have rights to do whatever they want to on their land without concern for environmental effects would be a "disaster", he says.
"That would be the unfettered right to do anything, our resource management laws need to be much more nuanced than that."
Tolman is also unsure about how the guiding principle might work.
She suspects it may be influenced by the backlash against Significant Natural Areas, or SNAs, where land-owners who have significant areas of biodiversity on their land may be limited in what they can do in those areas, such as chop down trees without consent.
"In a more urban space, what one person does on their property affects the next person's property values, for example, so I don't really know what they mean by that."
Infrastructure New Zealand's policy director Michelle McCormick was not at the conference, but is closely following RMA reform for the industry association. She believes the starting premise of the enjoyment of property rights is people can do anything, until you "materially impact" someone else.
New Zealand Planning Institute chair Andrea Harris was at the conference. The institute represents around 3000 planners, who grapple with the nitty-gritty of implementing the RMA. She says the enjoyment of property rights is already a premise in the current RMA. While it's not the guiding principle, or purpose of the act, "it underpins it".
Environmental bottom lines
In Bishop's telling, protecting the environment will be achieved by setting environmental limits. He explained the second of the two replacement acts will do the job.
"Quantified environmental limits, set by regional councils, should manage and control discharges for each environmental domain," he said.
Simon Court continued the thread when he spoke: "There will be a 'double-bottom line'," he said. "So councils will be required to provide for essential human needs such as housing, food production, drinking water and sanitation within environmental limits."
He reiterated: "No environmental limit should make it impossible to building [sic] houses, produce food or energy, or provide transport. The right to housing and other essentials will be beyond question."
Court's wording set off alarm bells for Tolman. "Basically you are saying that actually it's a limit, but not when it comes to those things."
Taylor is in favour of environmental bottom lines, but says she is confused by Court's statement. "If by a double bottom line, they mean an overall, broad judgement, that is, we'll have a bottom line of development and a bottom line of environment, then that's going to be very confusing and is going to lead to a whole host of litigation."
He doubts the double bottom line concept would "fly in the real world".
McCormick is also unsure of how double bottom lines would work, but supportive of environmental limits. In order to have an impact, they "should be much more scientifically based".
Planning disputes tribunal
Bishop's speech suggested a tribunal be created to speedily resolve differences.
"There will be rapid, low-cost dispute resolution between neighbours, property owners, and councils embedded into the system. Further work will determine how best to achieve this, including the potential for a new Planning Tribunal, similar to the Disputes Tribunal, to resolve disputes quickly and affordably," Bishop told attendees.
Tolman believes this idea relates to disputes between neighbours. "I'm not sure how it would work, but it's not a terrible idea if it's quicker, easier and more accessible for small disputes."
However, she is concerned it could "denigrate" the role of the Environment Court.
"There's quite a few hints in there that the Environment Court's role is going to be massively curtailed."
Taylor sees merit in the idea of a tribunal but warns how that "radically new concept" would play out is unknown.
McCormick says having a disputes tribunal could make justice more accessible and timely.
"The experience currently with the Environment Court is quite a high hurdle and very costly to get there." A government legal aid fund of $600,000 for community groups to undertake environmental cases was cut in the 2024 budget.
"It's probably become even harder to take a case there."
Harris thinks there is merit in the idea, and sees it as a good place for disputes between neighbours to be dealt with. However, without more detail around how a tribunal would work, she says it is hard to formulate a proper opinion.
Do we still need fast-track legislation?
"One-stop-shop" fast-track legislation was part of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First. The reform of the RMA formed part of the National and ACT's coalition agreement.
If the RMA reform is done well, is there any need to have both?
Infrastructure NZ's McCormick doesn't think so.
"I don't think you need both at all. This is an interim step to assist while we've got a very clogged up system at the moment," she says.
"I would see the fast-track [legislation] as a band-aid solution at the moment." With the proposed changes to the way the RMA currently works in place she believes projects will be able to move faster.
Tolman is also unsure. "The fast track does massively undermine the resource management system the way that it's drafted."
In its current form, the fast-track legislation is proposed to sit above and overrule the RMA, "so all the work that's being done to fix (so-called) the RMA in the context of the fast track, is not going to have much effect," she says.
Taylor's view is similar.
"If we had good resource management law, you wouldn't need special purpose fast-track legislation because that would be embedded somehow in the new law. Hopefully that will happen at some point."
Harris is also sceptical. The only reason she sees for both to exist is that fast-track legislation sits over several other pieces of legislation, such as the Wildlife and Conservation Acts.
The need for speed
The pace at which change will come worries both Tolman and Taylor.
The panel assembled to create the blueprint for change is due to report back before Christmas, and legislation to be in place by mid 2026.
"Frankly, I don't think they will get there," says Taylor, who describes the proposed timeline as "heroic" and "completely unrealistic" for something as big as the RMA.
He describes the panel selected to create the blueprint as "surprisingly good", but faced with a monumental task in the time allowed.
"I expect that's simply a way of putting pressure on everybody to do stuff, but there will be slippage. I think there has to be slippage because we can't afford to get this wrong."
With several false starts on addressing issues with the current RMA, he would like to see change done in a way which will have bipartisan support.
"We don't want to end up in 2027 with new law that the present government has put in place being repealed and replaced again by a new government. The whole point about this process is this is the second time round, and we've got to get it right. We can't keep doing this because it's so debilitating for both community groups, but also for our economic development and our environmental management."
Harris also hopes the changes will get bipartisan support, and agrees the panel will need to work at pace.
McCormick is excited work is underway, and that it appears to be a priority. When it comes to the timelines, she thinks anything is achievable if it is resourced properly.
Ensuring there is enough time for engagement is critical, she says. The association supports the idea of two acts replacing the RMA, "but we need to really understand how they will work together".
The result of the changes will impact everyday New Zealanders' futures, she says, and span from how communities are built, how transport is organised, where schools and businesses are located, and protect the environment.
"I don't think there is any part of our lives every day that isn't touched and where planning decisions don't have an impact on it."
