Five Million Voices

Should the Resource Management Act be amended to reduce regulatory requirements on consent applicants and farmers, pause certain freshwater and biodiversity rules, and streamline national direction processes?

This Government bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 to change resource consent processes, local authority obligations, and stock exclusion and winter grazing regulations as part of a phased reform programme. It pauses or removes several freshwater and biodiversity rules pending replacement legislation and streamlines how national direction is made.

MPs’ arguments for and against the bill

Why support it
  • Supporters argued the bill reduces regulatory burden and gives councils, farmers, and consent applicants greater certainty while the RMA is being replaced.
  • Supporters said decisions about stock exclusion and winter grazing should rest with farmers and regional councils based on catchment-specific risk rather than blanket national rules.
  • Supporters argued that streamlining the national direction process, including removing the rarely used board of inquiry and overlapping evaluation reports, makes the system faster and more efficient while still allowing public input.
Why oppose it
  • Opponents argued that pausing the identification of significant natural areas and removing stock-exclusion and winter-grazing regulations risks more environmental harm, with no committed review of the effects once the rules are gone.
  • Opponents said treating coal mining the same as other extractive activities is inappropriate during a climate crisis given coal's carbon emissions.
  • Opponents argued that retrospectively pausing council plans, such as Otago's, undermines the rule of law and is inefficient, leaving land users to rely on outdated plans.

These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.

Full bill summary & link to official bill page

This Bill makes a package of targeted changes to New Zealand's resource management system, chiefly the rules affecting freshwater, farming and mining. While a wider review of freshwater policy is carried out, it directs that the "hierarchy of obligations" in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management - the principle known as Te Mana o te Wai, which puts the health of water first - is set aside when councils decide resource consents. It pauses the rollout of compulsory freshwater farm plans, repeals the "low-slope map" that determined where stock must be fenced out of waterways, and replaces the intensive winter grazing rules with simpler requirements on riparian setbacks and critical source areas. It also aligns consenting for coal mining with other mineral extraction, suspends for three years councils' duty to identify new Significant Natural Areas, and streamlines how national direction is made. Farmers, miners and regional councils are most affected.

The Bill is a government measure delivering coalition commitments to ease resource-management rules that farmers and other sectors argued had become too costly and uncertain. Supporters say it removes duplication and compliance burdens, gives rural communities breathing room, and is a sensible bridge while the government designs a broader replacement for the Resource Management Act 1991. Opponents, including environmental organisations and many freshwater scientists, argue it weakens hard-won protections for rivers, lakes and wetlands, downgrades the guiding role of Te Mana o te Wai, and makes it easier to approve activities - from winter grazing to coal mining - with significant environmental effects, potentially reversing gains in water quality and biodiversity.

See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.

Oppose (No) Support (Yes)

Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill · Third Reading, 23 Oct 2024
Parliament voted 68–54 — it passed.