On 9 December 2025 the Government released the legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Government have proposed replacing the draft RMA with two pieces of legislation:
- The Natural Environment Bill which will focus on the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment.
- The Planning Bill which will focus on planning and regulating the use, development, and enjoyment of land.
These bills are expected to be enacted into law mid 2026 with further secondary legislation to follow later in 2026.
The bills will be open for formal consultation through a select committee process, with submissions due 13 February 2026.
Why RMA reform is important
The RMA and freshwater rules that sit under it are arguably the most important pieces of legislation for the farming sector as this framework determines the use of our productive resources.
Getting these pieces of legislation right is a once in a generation chance to re-set how our productive resources are managed and remove the current regulatory issues and pressures facing farmers.
The reform aims to make NZ’s framework for managing the use of our productive resources more streamlined and practical.
This will be one of B+LNZ’s primary focuses over the coming months.
B+LNZ’s initial analysis
At a general level we strongly support reform of the RMA and want to see this done right. We welcome:
- the Government’s intent to make the new framework more streamlined and practical;
- to have fewer consents and more permitted activities;
- that freshwater farm plans are intended to be an alternative to a consent, risk based and simple to use.
- the introduction of regulatory relief, where regional councils need to provide compensation if they impose a control that restricts land-use, such as a Significant Natural Area (SNA); and
- a transitional pathway to the new system where existing consents will be rolled over for a number of years.
However, this is complex, highly technical legislation and there are areas that need work. The legislation includes 700 pages, is very broad, and it is hard to properly understand the potential impact without seeing the secondary legislation (e.g. the specific freshwater polices) that will sit underneath and that may not come out until mid-next year.
There is also significant uncertainty around decision-making, with local government reform underway which has implications for how the overall new system will work.
Below we have highlighted some of our key areas of concern where the intent of government is not lining up with the bill’s drafting and provided a high-level summary of the issues that exist. We’ll be working to understand these issues in more detail and working to ensure strong positions that reflect sheep and beef farmers.
We will continue to update this webpage as our positions progress.
- The proposed new system aims to replace the need for consents with FW-FPs. This is good for those that currently require consent, but most sheep and beef farmers do not.
- Our reading of the legislation is that all farmers will be required to have an audited farm plan and some also need them to be certified, and the current drafting does not adequately differentiate between high risk and low risk farming activities
- This would see many sheep and beef farmers being worse off than under the current system as they will be forced into a regulatory farm plan regime facing significantly higher administrative and regulatory burden and is not something we could accept.
- Under the current system if a farm is operating within the permitted standards regime there is little or no bureaucratic oversight.
- We are also keen to understand how the intent of government around freshwater farm plans taking the place of consents is enabled in the legislation.
- The proposed new system still has environmental limits. The central Government will set limits for human health. However Regional Councils will be delegated authority to set limits for ecosystem health across soil, water, air and biodiversity, with national guidance on how to do that.
- We need more detail to understand how this will work in practice and ensure appropriate guard rails are put in place.
- Out initial take is that there is not enough direction to councils to balance economic, environmental, social, and cultural outcomes in the limit setting process.
- While the Government is aiming for fewer consents, the restrictive language in the current draft legislation could potentially cut across this intent and we are looking at this closely.
- We need to ensure, that Regional Councils cannot easily go beyond the national rules and can’t simply pick up the regional plans that were put on hold under the old system.
- Independent research we commissioned on the suspended fine sediment targets in the Freshwater NPS showed they would have required the retirement of at least 40 percent of sheep and beef land, and the limits would still not have been achieved in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is critical that any environmental limits set under the new system must be achievable.
- Another key area we will be closely examining includes the potential allocation of tradeable rights (which could be via market mechanisms) to individual farms, or cap and trade systems, as a way of addressing water quality or water quantity issues.
- While in theory this can allow the efficient allocation of resources, in practice it won’t work for diffuse contaminants, such as nitrogen because of many issues, such as the challenges in accurately measuring losses at the farm level.
- There are several examples of perverse outcomes from water allocation, such as the Murray Darling in Australia where a small number of growers hold a significant amount of the water leaving stranded non-economic land parcels.
- Attempts at allocation and trading of diffuse contaminants (such as nitrogen) have been inefficient, costly and/or unworkable.
- We need further clarification about how the new approach to biodiversity will work.
- There is an intent to set limits for biodiversity, with a no net loss goal, which we need to understand more details on.
- But on the positive side if the regional councils proposed rules would have a big impact on the use of your land, then you may be able to get “relief” such as lower rates, cash payments or no-fee consents etc. This is intended to introduce a tension on Councils to consider the impact of what they are proposing, which we support.
Consultation period
The Government is seeking feedback on this draft legislation. This process will be through a select committee process featuring opportunities to provide written and oral submissions.
We encourage farmers to have their say through a written submission. In the New Year B+LNZ will provide more information about the positions we will be taking in the B+LNZ oral and written submission and will support farmers in identifying key areas to submit on.
We will be running webinars in the New Year. Keep an eye out in e-diaries and this webpage in the New Year to find out dates and register.
The consultation period runs till the 13 February 2026.
We will continue to work with sector partners such as DairyNZ, Federated Farmers, Deer Industry New Zealand, Horticulture New Zealand, IrrigationNZ and others to find alignment.
How you can get involved
- To inform our early thinking, we’re running a survey to gather farmer input. The survey should take around 15-20 minutes to complete. Find it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VLMT26T
- If you have something in particular you would like us to know about RMA Reform, please either complete the survey above or email us via the box below.
- We will be hosting two webinars to inform you about the changes happening and our key concerns.
- To learn more and read the legislation see here:
As always, please talk to one of us or your local B+LNZ farmer director if you have any questions or concerns.
Share your feedback with us
If you have something in particular you would like us to know about RMA Reform, please email us at [email protected]
