The clock is ticking: local government guide to the Planning and Natural Environment Bills (second reading)

Resource management reform is hurtling towards its pre-election finish line. The Natural Environment Bill (NEB) and Planning Bill (PB) (together, the Bills) passed their Second Reading on 4 August 2026 with the Environment Select Committee's (Committee) recommended changes adopted. There were no amendment papers to the Bills at Second Reading, albeit Minister Bishop stated further amendments would be introduced ‘soon’.

In this article, we discuss the key changes to the Bills recommended by the Select Committee, focusing on the issues that matter for local government in the short term.

The big picture

The overall structure and policy approach remains largely unchanged. This includes: the two Bill ‘split’ structure; the ‘funnel’ approach; national direction sitting above the three plan structure (regional spatial plans, land use plans and natural environment plans); approach to the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori interests; inclusion of the regulatory relief framework; excluded effects under the PB; restricted participation and appeal rights; the new Planning Tribunal; and significant powers for Ministerial direction/intervention. For more detail on the important elements of the Bills at first reading from a local government perspective, see this article.
Significant changes were recommended by the Select Committee and have now been accepted at Second Reading. These are set out at the end of this article and include: Ministerial exemptions for breaches of environmental limits and refinement of out of scope effects, the purpose of the PB, and the goals of the Bills. For more detail on the key changes recommended by the Select Committee see our earlier article.
The Government remains committed to enacting the Bills before the general election. If the Bills pass as expected by 24 September (the last sitting day pre-election), councils will need to hit the ground running. Amendments to the RMA on ‘transitional consenting’ commence one month after Royal assent to the PB. Regional spatial plan process implementation will need to be prioritised.
The implementation of the new Bills will occur in parallel to the Government’s plethora of local government reforms (see this timeline). This is likely to place significant pressure on local authorities and will require significant funding allocations through the next long-term plan cycle in 2027. Local authorities across the country will be required to lead a complex, multi-year planning transition that will have significant resource implications (particularly given the likely constraints on the capacity of experienced planners and technical specialists) at the same time as progressing these other reforms.
Water Service Providers (both local authorities and water organisations) will also need to factor in funding to contribute to the implementation of the new Bills, particularly given the intended ‘blueprint’ role of regional spatial plans, and their significance for the future growth of urban areas.

This article sets out the key issues arising from the Second Reading version of the Bills that local government should prepare for in the short term.

Key changes to the Bills relevant to local government in the short term

Transitional consenting

The RMA will be amended by the PB Schedule 11, with those amendments in force one month after Royal assent. This is the start of the ‘transition period’ during which the amended RMA will apply, until it is repealed by Order in Council.

The Bills still:

require consideration of whether a resource consent application is consistent with any decided regional spatial plan or any relevant future development strategy published before the regional spatial plan (new s 104(1D)); and
delete the special circumstances test from public notification only (ie no change to limited notification).

Changes have been made to district plan consenting requirements during the transitional period. The key changes made at Second Reading are:

1	Refinement of the list of effects that must be excluded from consideration under new s 104(1A). Landscape effects now remain in scope for transitional consenting. Out of scope effects will now include ‘the external layout of any building on a site if the effects of the external layout remain within the boundaries of the site'. These effects will also be out of scope for designations under s 171 of the RMA.
2	New s 76A of the RMA allows territorial authorities to remove or modify district plan provisions relating to excluded effects, without using the Schedule 1 process.
3	New s 104AA of the RMA allows a territorial authority to give notice that an activity is a permitted activity where there is marginal or temporary non-compliance with a district plan rule or standard relating to an excluded effect.
4	New s 76(6) states that a rule must not require a resource consent for an activity solely because it relates to a matter specified in s 104(1A).

These sit alongside the discretion in the new s 104(1B) to disregard a NES, NPS, RPS or plan to the extent that it regulates or purports to regulate an out of scope effect for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) (i.e. the effects assessment) of the RMA.

The amendments at Second Reading create a web of new options for dealing with out of scope effects under the RMA over the next 4 years. In practice, we expect that identifying district plan provisions that relate to some of the excluded effects might not be straightforward, and different approaches might evolve across the country. The new ss 104AA and 76 are not accompanied by any mechanism that could be used to review a Council decision made in relation to them. Applying these amended RMA provisions will require a rapid readjustment to current practice for territorial authorities in particular.

Regional spatial planning

The timeframe for notification of proposed regional spatial plans (RSPs) has been extended, with some additional flexibility provided for in other places. Bearing this timing in mind, there are several steps that can be progressed now to prepare. That includes drafting process agreements and terms of reference for the spatial plan committee, and gathering and consolidating data / evidence (particularly across districts).

This early work for RSPs is somewhat overshadowed by uncertainty arising from “Head Start” local government reorganisation proposals, but the preparatory work for notification of RSPs will need to proceed relying on the current regional boundaries. This is because RSPs may need to be notified prior to enactment of any legislation implementing the Head Start proposals, and because it is not clear at present if local authorities that form unitary councils through the Head Start process will each have a separate RSP (as explained in our previous article).

A raft of changes to RSPs were recommended by the Select Committee and adopted in the second reading version of the PB. As councils start to prepare for the RSP process and set up the arrangements that will precede drafting of the RSP, understanding the implications of the changes in the Second Reading version of the Bills is key to both substance and timing.

Key changes are the new:

1	Purpose for RSPs that is to set the strategic direction for growth and change in a region for a time frame of 30 years or longer (cl 63C).
2	Core obligations for the preparation of RSPs, rather than the initial vaguer list of what RSPs should achieve (cl 67B). This list includes priority areas for adaptation to climate change consistent with the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill (see our previous article on that Bill here), which had its first reading on 4 August.
3	Detail on how incorporating information from RMA documents into the first regional spatial plan for a region can occur (cl 7A, Sch 1).
4	Power to review the RSP at any time, rather than only the 10 year mandatory review (reasons might be environmental limits or new national direction) (cl 74/74A).
5	Pre-notification consultation requirements with: iwi authorities, Ministers, adjacent regional or territorial authorities, water organisations, infrastructure providers, representatives of the development sector, representatives of other sector groups, and representatives of the wider community (cl 8 and 9, Sch 2).
6	Requirement for te ao Māori and Māori development expertise on spatial plan committees (cl 71).
7	Restriction of Ministerial intervention. As first introduced, the Minister could make decisions on any IHP recommendation relating to broadly defined ‘matters of national interest.’ This has been narrowed so that the Minister can now make decisions on nationally significant infrastructure owned or funded by the Crown, and nationally significant coastal marine area matters identified in a national instrument (Schedule 2, new clause 27).

Removal of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe

The First Reading version of the Bills provided for Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements (MWAR) to continue to apply to the new system. The Select Committee recommended some changes relevant to MWAR but left them in force as relevant to powers/functions/processes under the new regime. The Government then announced that it will prevent agreed or initiated MWAR from having effect under the Bills. This change has not yet been made to the Bills, and an amendment paper is expected to follow at the Committee of the Whole House stage.

MWAR have been an important part of the relationship between some councils and mana whenua by structuring council-iwi engagement on resource management matters. With detail lacking on the new narrowly scoped iwi participation agreements, it is unclear how they will differ from MWAR. Labour is already signalling its intention to reinstate the role of MWAR agreements in the system if elected.

Councils are grappling with how to respond to this issue. The range of options taken in response might include:

Considering how to convert existing MWAR into another form that can take effect under the Bills.
Continuing to progress initiated MWAR on the basis that there is a possibility of change of government, and given the long transition period with the RMA in force for over 4 years.
Waiting to see where the issue lands before expending resources on a MWAR, or considering converting existing MWAR, that might not have effect under the PB and NEB once enacted.

New compliance and enforcement tool

From one month after Royal assent, new s 325C of the RMA will be in force. That section allows for the making of an adverse publicity order in relation to non-compliance with the RMA. An adverse publicity order can be made by the Environment Court in enforcement proceedings or by the District Court in a prosecution, on application, or offered as part of an enforceable undertaking. The order can require the non-compliance, its effects, and the penalty imposed to be publicised.

This new tool to the RMA is already used in Australia, and is available for councils during the transitional period. While there was no major change to this provision in the Second Reading version, it is an element of the Bills that is relevant in the short term.

Other key changes to the Bills recommended by Select Committee

In addition to the changes discussed above, other key changes made to the Bills that reflect the Select Committee’s recommendations are set out below.

Planning Bill	Natural Environment Bill	Both Bills
Amended purpose to the Bill, to focus on the ‘enjoyment of land’	Breach of environmental limits can now occur in more circumstances. Expanded Ministerial power to authorise breaches for publicly beneficial activities (not just infrastructure)	Adverse effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change out of scope
Changes to goals - must now ‘enable infrastructure to meet current and future demand’, and language change to ‘abundant development opportunities’	Changes to goals - ‘Within environmental limits’ constraint removed from the use/development of natural resources and new goal is added to enable enhancement of the natural environment	Changes to goals - Natural hazards goal reframed from managing hazard effects to safeguarding against hazard risk
Tweaks to out of scope effects	Removal of the precautionary principle	A new definition of 'infrastructure'
Specified natural hazard rules can override existing use rights	Removal of new allocation methods (market-based or comparative methods)	Changes to integration: NEB prohibition on considering PB-regulated effects removed and natural hazards and contaminated land confirmed in scope under PB
Tweaks to regulatory relief (effect must be adverse and two biodiversity specified topics have been consolidated)	Lower the threshold for statutory water takes for domestic and stock water from ‘no adverse’ effect on the natural resource (being the setting in the RMA) to ‘no more than minor’ adverse effect on the natural resource
Tweaks to designations, including the tests to be met and those eligible to be requiring authorities	New wildlife approvals framework
Minister must provide iwi authorities with draft national instruments and have regard to their advice before these instruments are notified	Reintroduction of controlled activity status
Permitted activities only need to be registered if required by regulations
Private plan changes under the Bills cannot be rejected on substantive grounds, only due to timing
Private plan changes under the RMA are subject to a 'stop' on applications after 1 January 2028

For more detail on the key changes recommended by the Select Committee, see our earlier article. We have also explored changes by the Select Committee of most interest from an urban development perspective in this article, which explores in more detail some of these issues that may be of interest: Orange light for development: What the Select Committee report on the Planning Bill signals for developers.

What’s next?

There have been substantial changes to the Bills at Second Reading, plus the Government’s policy announcement on MWAR. The amendments do not generally change the policy intent of the Bills.

Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori's minority views as recorded in the Select Committee Report are highly critical of the Bills. While Labour does not intend to repeal and replace the Bills in their entirety, Chris Hipkins has confirmed that if Labour was elected in November, regulatory relief would be removed. A change of Government therefore appears likely to lead to further legislative adjustments, some potentially significant. Despite that uncertainty, elements of the Bills will become practically relevant for councils in the immediate term. Councils need to be prepared to launch into the procedural and substantive steps underpinning the RSP due to be notified in June 2028, while continuing to grapple with the application of the amended RMA through the transitional period.

If you would like to discuss the implications of these reforms, or the Select Committee’s Report in more detail, please contact one of our experts listed below.