Angus Kebbell sees the RMA reforms strengthening environmental outcomes, supporting the next generation of on farm investment, and reinforcing the competitiveness of the primary sector

Farming is standing at a pivotal moment as the country moves toward one of the most significant regulatory shifts we have seen in a generation.

For many in the rural sector the idea of a simpler and more predictable planning system feels overdue, because the Resource Management Act has shaped every consent, every land use choice and every development proposal for more than thirty years. In that time the weight of compliance has settled heavily on farmers, contractors and rural businesses, making the system slower, costlier and harder to navigate.

That pressure becomes even clearer when you look overseas. The frustrations New Zealand farmers have talked about for years are being echoed across Europe, where a growing debate about agricultural compliance has brought regulatory overload into the spotlight. In a recent podcast a Swedish dairy farmer described how discouraging it feels to face paperwork so complex that even simple information becomes hard to lodge correctly.

He explained that “forms are very long and detailed and eventually you just give up and call an adviser”, even though he knows every hectare of his own farm. What struck him most was the sense that “you feel like you should be able to do this by yourself”, yet the system makes that almost impossible. Many New Zealand farmers will recognise that feeling, because the RMA has often created a similar sense of helplessness when basic farm decisions require formal approvals.

The story was no different in Ireland, where an adviser described how farmers were still waiting for payments years after signing up to environmental programmes they had already completed. He said that “farmers just want to farm their land, but the paperwork can be time consuming and the requirements can be unclear” and he spoke about the stress created when rules change halfway through a programme, leaving farmers unsure whether they had met the right expectations. These comments could just as easily have come from Southland or Taranaki, because regulatory uncertainty crosses borders. When rules shift and administrative delays stretch on for months, trust in the system breaks down.

This is the context in which New Zealand now begins its RMA reform, and it explains why the moment feels so important. The Government’s proposal signals a shift toward a planning framework that aims to be faster, more consistent and more closely aligned with the realities of rural life.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop, who is overseeing the reforms with Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard, made it clear that the RMA is no longer fit for purpose. He said that “the RMA has failed to protect the environment, and it has failed to enable development” and he pointed to the slow and costly consenting processes that have become normal across the country. His message reflected what farmers and contractors have been saying for years, which is that the system is too fragmented and creates too much duplication.

Andrew Hoggard, who understands these pressures from his own time in farming, has been even more direct. He said that “farmers have been tied up in red tape for far too long and we need a system that supports growth instead of stalling it.” He also highlighted how “the cost of compliance has become a major burden”, and he stressed that rural businesses “need certainty to get on with the job.” Stability matters in agriculture because farm development relies on long term confidence. When a consent might take three months or three years, or when conditions vary wildly from region to region, investment decisions stall. Farmers delay improvements, question whether expansion is worth the risk and sometimes abandon plans altogether.

Europe is dealing with many of the same issues, and the European Commission has acknowledged that agricultural compliance rules have become too heavy. Benson Major from the Directorate General for Agriculture spoke openly about the pressure on small and medium sized farms across the continent. He said that “we need to build down administrative burden, because farmers should spend their time farming and not filling out papers”, and he noted that competitiveness cannot improve when systems do not share information. His comments mirror what New Zealand farmers have experienced for decades, particularly when they find themselves reporting the same data repeatedly to different bodies because agencies operate on separate platforms.

This is why the idea of a streamlined digital planning system has gained so much attention in New Zealand. The Government has signalled its intention to improve how agencies communicate, reduce duplication and create clearer pathways for consenting. If that ambition is realised it could avoid the kind of fragmentation seen in Europe, where farmers are often audited by several agencies at once, each demanding similar information. In the podcast an agricultural adviser described how a farmer received an official letter warning of potential errors in his application, only to discover after she checked the details, that he had done nothing wrong. She said the farmer was “so worried and didn’t understand how he could correct something”, and the issue was simply a poorly worded notice. That type of confusion is exactly what New Zealand must avoid.

The next stage for New Zealand is to design a planning system that is modern, aligned and easy to navigate. Rural communities are not asking for favourable treatment. They are asking for rules that make sense, that recognise good practice and that support environmental improvement without forcing farmers into endless loops of paperwork. They want councils that process consents efficiently so that investment in riparian planting, effluent systems, feed pads, or water storage can move ahead without long delays. They want confidence that planning decisions will be consistent across regions so that a project that is acceptable in one district does not become a regulatory ordeal in another.

The global trend in agricultural regulation is shifting toward outcome based frameworks, where environmental improvements are measured through results rather than process heavy compliance. Europe is moving in that direction, and New Zealand now has the chance to design its system with those lessons in mind. The RMA replacement is a structural change, not a small amendment and that creates room to build a framework that recognises good practice, that uses technology effectively, and that supports innovation instead of slowing it down. It also provides an opportunity to consider how national direction and regional flexibility fit together, creating a system that is clear enough to give certainty, yet flexible enough to account for the differences in soils, climate and land use across the country.

Europe’s experience shows what happens when regulation becomes too heavy. Farmers disengage, innovation slows and environmental outcomes suffer. But it also shows the opposite. When systems become clearer, more efficient and more coherent, farmers respond quickly because they finally have confidence in the path ahead. New Zealand’s reforms must aim for that same balance. The goal is not to lower environmental expectations, but to create a system that delivers better outcomes through clarity rather than confusion.

As the reforms move forward there will be debate and the details will evolve, but the direction set out by Ministers Bishop and Hoggard offers a welcome sense of momentum. The era of circular consenting processes and inconsistent outcomes has drained confidence from rural communities for too long. The RMA replacement offers a chance to rebuild that trust by creating a planning system that understands the pace and rhythm of farming and that respects the people who manage the land every day. This is an opportunity to lift performance through a system that works rather than one that holds people back. If New Zealand gets this right the country can strengthen its environmental outcomes, support the next generation of on farm investment, and reinforce the competitiveness of the primary sector that remains central to our economy.

Have a listen to the podcast to hear the full story.

Angus Kebbell is a producer at The Weekly Hotwire. You can contact him here.