Farming lobby group Groundswell says the coalition Government\u2019s resource management reform will be \u201cunworkable\u201d.<\/p>\n
Environmental groups last week called for the two replacement bills to be dumped because they pulled regulations back too far; Groundswell, meanwhile, says the new bills don\u2019t go far enough.<\/p>\n
Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop says if both sides are complaining, it\u2019s a sign that he\u2019s struck the right balance \u2013 but the sides do agree the fundamental legal mechanisms of the new bills will make things more complicated, not less.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Groundswell was originally associated with the Taxpayers\u2019 Union, a group with links to the Act and National parties. It has consistently supported right-leaning politics.<\/p>\n
But the group\u2019s environmental spokesperson, Jamie McFadden, says moving from the Resource Management Act into the new Planning and Natural Environment bills is \u201cheading from one massive bureaucratic nightmare into another \u2013 just quite a different nightmare\u201d.<\/p>\n
McFadden strongly supported the coalition Government\u2019s initial messaging around replacing the Resource Management Act, especially when it came to the \u201cenjoyment of private property rights\u201d meant to be at its core.<\/p>\n
But when Bishop, and his undersecretary, Act\u2019s Simon Court, presented the replacement bills in December 2025, McFadden was surprised with what he saw.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of our big concerns is the shift away from local decision making,\u201d says McFadden. <\/p>\n
The coalition Government campaigned as the champion of localism, but has since moved to abolish regional councils, mandate a rates cap, and influence development pipelines and direction via the resource management system \u2013 the legislation McFadden is warning farmers to be aware of.\u00a0<\/p>\n
McFadden says what\u2019s needed is to \u201cpress pause\u201d on the reform and go back a few steps. He says the Government \u201cmissed the boat a bit\u201d by not going out to take stock of what was going on in local councils to support the environment outside of regulations.<\/p>\n
In McFadden\u2019s view, farmers are inherently environmentalists, and he says many local groups are making strides in environmentalism without a mandate from central government.<\/p>\n
One of the mandates that could come under the new system is how different priorities (things like infrastructure development versus environmental health) are weighed up in decision making. This hierarchy would be set by the minister for the environment, a position subject to change at least every three years.\u00a0<\/p>\n
McFadden says he\u2019s not worried about the power concentrated in this role \u2013 so long as the person holding it is from a National-led government.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt would give us the absolute frighteners to have someone like David Parker given the powers that are being given to the minister under this new legislation,\u201d says McFadden: a fear shared, in the other direction, by environmentalists.<\/p>\n
Environmental groups share one major concern with Groundswell: that the fundamental design of the new system will result in something unworkable.<\/p>\n
Groups like the Environmental Defence Society have told Newsroom a range of design choices will lead to more litigation, instead of less: a confusing hierarchy, unclear interactions with other legislation, and internal conflict created by splitting the resource management space into two bills.\u00a0<\/p>\n
McFadden summarises the same concerns: \u201cit\u2019s going to be a lawyer\u2019s feast\u201d, he says. He thinks the new legislation is not fit for purpose and is not going to work: \u201cThere\u2019s no point in trying to push it forward.\u201d<\/p>\n
The two groups are not aligned on much else.<\/p>\n