The Government's replacement for the Resource Management Act is a win for business, farmers and property developers. Bryce Edwards says the new regime hands enormous power to those who already hold capital and land, while ordinary citizens and future generations are told to trust that it’ll all work out.
But this is not a mere tidy-up of planning rules. It’s a fundamental pivot in how we govern resources. The old RMA tried to balance development with environmental effects. The new regime is built on a different ethos entirely: prioritising private property rights and narrowly-defined “externalities” over broader environmental and community considerations.
The reforms have been engineered, through drastic limits on public participation and the introduction of unprecedented “regulatory relief” for landowners, to shift power and wealth to a small circle of vested interests. In short, it’s a charter for business, farmers and property developers, driven by libertarian ideology and delivered to those who have long lobbied (and donated) for exactly this outcome.
University of Auckland planning expert Bill McKay puts it brutally: “Who are the winners? Infrastructure developers, business, farmers. The losers? Maori, local consultation, environment, climate change action, and councils”.
The most significant shift is the move from an “effects-based” system to one centred “property rights”. Under the RMA, any activity with adverse environmental or community effects required scrutiny. The new system rejects this entirely. It narrows regulation to direct, measurable impacts on others’ property rights. Our cities and countryside are to be seen less as shared spaces and more as arenas for individual property interests.
Minister Bishop has ridiculed the current focus on “visual amenity”, mocking councils that regulate house colours. “Your front door is your business,” he declared. This sounds appealing to homeowners frustrated by pedantic councils. But “amenity” is what makes neighbourhoods livable (streetscape character, sunlight access, absence of dominating structures). By excising it from the planning lexicon, the Government is privatising the benefits of development while socialising the costs. This represents a victory for the Act Party’s libertarian wing, which has long argued planning should be limited to dispute resolution between property owners rather than community building. The ideological underpinnings here are genuinely radical.
The most dangerous mechanism in the package is “regulatory relief”, known internationally as “regulatory takings”. The concept originates in American jurisprudence, where regulations restricting property use can constitute a “taking” of value requiring compensation. This idea circulated for years in fringe libertarian think-tanks and Act Party conferences, but never gained mainstream traction in New Zealand. Our legal tradition has held that the state can regulate land use in the public interest without compensation, provided land isn’t physically seized. These reforms lower that bar dramatically. Councils will now be required to offer “relief” to landowners if planning rules significantly restrict the reasonable use of their land, through cash compensation, rates remission, or bonus development rights.
This creates what critics call a “fiscal chilling effect”. Consider a council wanting to protect remnant native forest by designating it a Significant Natural Area. Under the new regime, the landowner could demand compensation for being prevented from converting it to pasture. Faced with a bill running into millions, cash-strapped councils will simply abandon the protection. As Greg Severinsen of the Environmental Defence Society warns, this will mean councils “wouldn’t bother having a fight”. The result is regulatory retreat, i.e. environmental protection rationed by councils’ ability to pay. This inverts the “polluter pays” principle. Instead of landowners bearing the cost of environmental impact, the public pays them to refrain from destroying ecosystems.
Make no mistake, this change overwhelmingly benefits big players. It’s dressed up as helping the little guy with a quarter-acre, but the real winners are large corporate landowners, developers and industrial farmers with deep pockets and lawyers on speed-dial. A forestry company restricted from planting on erosion-prone land could demand compensation for lost earnings. As Greenpeace’s Genevieve Toop noted: if regions like Gisborne want stronger rules to stop forestry slash destroying homes, ratepayers would pay offshore forestry companies compensation.
No wonder business lobbyists are popping champagne: one called the changes “transformational”. Fewer regulations, fewer delays, and fewer obligations mean higher profits and faster projects. Whether this actually leads to more affordable housing and infrastructure or just fatter margins remains to be seen, but history gives plenty of reason for cynicism.
Farmers, too, have scored a clean sweep. Federated Farmers proclaimed a “red letter day” as the government swept away environmental rules the rural lobby spent years fighting. The previous government’s freshwater protections that put environmental health first are being watered down to put economic use on an equal footing. For big agribusiness, it’s a dream result: less red tape, less oversight, and less cost.
Big infrastructure and mining firms are also grinning. Major projects like highways, dams, mines and subdivisions will face far fewer hurdles. The reforms align seamlessly with the Government’s Fast Track legislation, creating a permissive environment where industry groups for trucking, construction and energy are applauding the changes as “long overdue” to get growth going. They see a government willing to bulldoze both regulations and opposition in order to let them build and dig to their heart’s content.
By splitting environmental protection into a separate silo from development planning, the reforms throw out the RMA’s core principle of integrated management. Decisions on development can now be made with far less regard for environmental consequences.
Local democracy is another big loser in this overhaul. The current patchwork of over 100 plans will be consolidated into just 17 regional combined plans, concentrating power in Wellington to an extent not seen in decades. Political journalist Richard Harman notes today the reforms “consolidate more power at the centre”, effectively reducing regional authorities to permit-processing arms of central government. This is a deliberate bulldozing of public input in the name of speed and efficiency.
The way these reforms are being rushed through only adds to the concern. The coalition is advancing this massive legislation under urgency, severely limiting scrutiny and debate. This “bulldozer” approach to lawmaking is reminiscent of the Muldoon era, and uses the same officials who designed the fast-track processes to circumvent normal checks. All of this is a far cry from careful, consultative policymaking. But it fits the ethos of a government fixated on “getting things done”. In this case, they are ploughing ahead with an agenda favouring their supporters and daring anyone to slow them down.
Yes, the RMA was flawed and in need of reform. Few would disagree that the old system had become sluggish, convoluted, and frustrating. But what we’re seeing here is not a balanced fix, it’s an ideological coup. It hands enormous power to those who already hold capital and land, while ordinary citizens and future generations are told to trust that it’ll all work out. The risks of corruption, cronyism and environmental ruin are cast aside in the pursuit of growth-at-any-cost.
In a healthy democracy, big changes like this ought to benefit the many, not just a privileged few. So the question remains: who is our planning system really being redesigned to serve? By stripping away safeguards and concentrating power with ministers and their mates, the Government is betting that voters won’t notice or won’t care. But if the RMA reforms end up enriching a handful while our environment and communities pay the price, it will be a stark sign that our democracy is failing, captured by vested interests wearing the mask of reform.
This article was first published by The Democracy Project. Dr Bryce Edwards is Director of The Democracy Project.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.