What is the RMA?
The Resource Management Act 1991 — the RMA — is New Zealand’s main environmental and planning law. It governs what can be built where, how land can be used, and what effects on the environment are acceptable.
If you want to build a house, subdivide land, put up a commercial building, open a factory, or make a significant change to a property, there’s a good chance you need a resource consent under the RMA. Your local council assesses and grants (or declines) that consent.
Why does it matter for council amalgamation?
Right now, each of New Zealand’s 78 councils has its own district or regional plan — a rulebook for what can happen in its area. That means 78 different sets of planning rules, 78 different consent processes, and 78 different interpretations of national policy.
A developer building across council boundaries deals with multiple sets of rules. A business seeking consent in one region may face entirely different requirements just a few kilometres away in the next. Infrastructure projects — roads, water pipes, housing developments — can be delayed or blocked by the complexity of navigating multiple planning regimes.
Minister Bishop’s argument is direct: you cannot fix the planning system while leaving 78 councils in place. The rules change, but the fragmentation that makes them hard to apply stays the same. That’s why he has tied the council amalgamation deadline explicitly to the RMA reform timeline. Both must happen together, or neither works properly.
What’s wrong with the RMA as it stands?
The RMA was groundbreaking when it was introduced in 1991. It replaced a patchwork of older laws with a single framework built around managing environmental effects rather than prescribing land uses.
But over 35 years it has accumulated layers of complexity. Critics across the political spectrum agree on the problems, even if they disagree on the solutions:
- Resource consents take too long and cost too much. A straightforward consent can take months. A complex one can take years, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still be appealed to the Environment Court.
- The system is adversarial. Anyone can object to a consent application, which means well-resourced opponents — including neighbours, competitors, and lobby groups — can delay projects almost indefinitely.
- Rules vary too much between councils. A nationally significant infrastructure project may face 10 different planning regimes as it crosses council boundaries.
- Housing has been a particular failure. The RMA made it difficult and expensive to build housing at the pace and scale NZ needed, contributing to the housing crisis of the 2010s and 2020s.
What is the government replacing it with?
The government is replacing the RMA with two new Acts: the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act (SPA). These are expected to pass into law in 2026.
The core changes:
- Fewer, simpler planning documents. Instead of 78 council plans, the new system aims for regional spatial strategies covering larger areas — which only works if there are fewer, larger councils to write and administer them.
- Faster consents. The government wants to reduce the time and cost of getting consent for housing, infrastructure and business development.
- National direction. More things will be decided nationally rather than council by council, reducing variation and making it easier to build at scale.
- Less room to object. The new system limits who can participate in consent processes and on what grounds, to reduce delays from vexatious objections.
Why are the two reforms linked?
The new planning system requires larger, more capable councils to administer it. A small district council with limited staff and resources struggles to run a sophisticated consent process, maintain a complex district plan, and engage with national policy direction all at once.
Larger unitary authorities — the kind the government is pushing councils toward — have more capacity, more expertise, and more resources to implement the new system effectively.
Bishop has said repeatedly: fix planning without fixing councils and you just recreate the same dysfunction at a smaller scale. That’s why both reforms are happening simultaneously, on the same timeline, with the same 2028 implementation target.
THIS BUILDING BLOCK APPEARS IN