By Alan McDonald, Head of Advocacy & Strategy, EMA
Few pieces of legislation have consumed as much political oxygen over the past decade as the Resource Management Act.
Governments of different colours have acknowledged the same underlying problem. New Zealand’s resource management system became increasingly expensive, slow and uncertain. Major infrastructure projects stalled, housing developments faced lengthy delays and businesses struggled to navigate a maze of interpretations, overlapping plans, rules and consent processes.
Just as importantly, the existing legislation was no longer meeting its objectives. In 2016, research commissioned by the EMA, Property Council New Zealand and Infrastructure New Zealand, and undertaken by the Environmental Defence Society, found that the RMA was failing to deliver its intended environmental outcomes.
That finding helped create an unusual consensus: the Resource Management Act was no longer delivering for either economic development or environmental protection.
Environmental protections matter. Strong planning rules matter. Public confidence matters.
But it is equally important to ask what happens if we do not reform the system.
New Zealand faces an infrastructure deficit measured in the tens of billions of dollars. We need new transport links, electricity generation, transmission upgrades, water infrastructure, housing and industrial development.
We also need new schools, hospitals, parks and protection of taonga and natural environmental treasures across New Zealand. Greater resilience, population pressures, climate challenges and economic demands continue to grow.
The current system struggles to deliver any of these at the pace the country requires.
A resource management system should establish clear environmental expectations, identify where development can occur, protect what genuinely needs protecting and then provide certainty to those making investment decisions and those concerned about their impacts.
Under the latest reforms, the intent is that instead of repeatedly relitigating fundamental questions on a project-by-project basis, much of the difficult work will occur upfront through regional spatial planning and national environmental standards.
The result should be greater certainty for communities, councils, infrastructure providers, environmental interests and investors alike.
If a project complies with established standards and is located in an area designated for that activity, the pathway is clearer, faster and more predictable than it has been under the existing system.
That certainty matters.
Businesses are reluctant to invest where regulatory outcomes are unpredictable. Capital does not flow easily where consenting timelines can stretch for years and where different regions interpret national requirements in different ways.
Certainty encourages investment. Investment drives productivity. Productivity supports higher incomes and the economic growth New Zealand needs to continue to pay for the services we value.
The reforms also recognise that environmental protection and development are not mutually exclusive objectives.
A national framework for environmental standards creates a more consistent approach than the patchwork of regional interpretations that has developed over decades. But we do have concerns about the level of decision making on national environmental standards that is currently vested with ministers.
The EMA has consistently argued for strong national oversight, robust environmental standards and effective implementation. Leaving those standards in the hands of a single minister opens the door to inconsistency as ministers and governments change. Those decisions will require strong guardrails and guidelines to ensure consistency.
The new system is clearer, especially in the planning act.
As with any major reform, there are still areas that will need careful attention. Questions around implementation, consultation processes, regulatory takings and institutional responsibilities will continue to be debated.
No legislation of this scale is perfect on day one.
However, after years of reviews, reports, inquiries, alternative models and political reversals, New Zealand has reached the point where constantly redesigning the system is part of the problem.
The clearest message the EMA hears from businesses is a desire for both reform and stability.
Major reforms take years to develop and even longer to properly assess. The next challenge is implementation. Councils must implement the new requirements consistently and effectively.
The reforms must also be given enough time to prove whether they can deliver on their promise.
The replacement of the Resource Management Act is not about choosing between growth and the environment.
It is about creating a system capable of supporting both.