The risk is not necessarily the reforms themselves – it is the cumulative weight of implementing them all at once, writes Mike Doesburg, Wynn Williams Partner and Leader of the firm’s Environment, Planning and Local Government team.
If the last two years of local government and environmental law reform have felt like a rising tide, 2026 is shaping up to be the year the wave actually breaks.
The scale of legislative change confronting local government is, frankly, extraordinary. Resource management reform, development funding changes, public works modernisation and local government amendments are all landing at once. Councils are being asked to absorb, adapt and implement at a pace that will challenge even the most well-resourced authority.
Head Start proposals stuck in starting blocks
Let’s start with the irony.
The Government’s Head Start programme was designed as a wero, or challenge, to local authorities – propose reorganisation or have reorganisation thrust upon you. Many councils invested significant time, political capital and resources developing early proposals for new unitary authorities. Eighteen proposals were submitted and, for the moment at least, have been parked.
For councils that held back, there may be a quiet sense of vindication. For those that went early, the question is whether their investment will ultimately be recognised or written off as a useful, albeit expensive, rehearsal.
Making way for infrastructure
The Public Works Act 1981 received its last major oil change in 1988. It had a tune-up in 2025, targeting significant projects through the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Act 2025. This year, however, Parliament has rolled it back into the workshop for a much more comprehensive overhaul.
The Public Works Amendment Act 2026 seeks to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and clarity of the Act in relation to land acquisition, objections and compensation. Changes include: refining the process for issuing notices of desire and notices of intention to take land, refocusing the objection process, and enabling acquisition for combined projects (involving multiple separate public works).
Other changes are: better enabling acquisition for emergency works, and increasing some compensation entitlements (including a 10 percent “bonus” if agreement is reached quickly).
Not everyone is convinced the balance is right. The most debated change is the narrowing of the Environment Court’s role. It removes consideration of alternative sites where a designation exists and exempts some critical infrastructure projects from the Court’s objections altogether. Time will tell whether the changes deliver more projects on the ground.
Picking up the Bill for sprawl
Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 have put development contributions back in the spotlight, particularly as Fast-track projects stray from anticipated growth areas.
The real story may be what comes next. The Government is eyeing a shift to development levies, which could fundamentally change how councils fund growth infrastructure. The details are still to be worked through and councils will want a seat at the table as the policy develops.
The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Act 2026 has made other important changes, including to refocus the statutory purpose of local government (on cost-effective infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions, with a new purpose of supporting local growth), defining core services and strengthening transparency and accountability.
RMA gone
The main event, of course, is the replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) with the twin Planning and Natural Environment Acts 2026. For councils and practitioners, the immediate challenge is navigating four years of transition.
First comes new national policy direction, followed by regional spatial planning and combined land use and natural environment plans. Bringing the new system online will be a significant undertaking.
The Government has attracted attention with its claim that the new system will reduce the number of resource consents by 46 percent. Whether that proves a triumph of efficiency or a transfer of environmental risk remains to be seen. Removing genuinely low-risk activities from regulation is one thing; reducing scrutiny of activities with meaningful environmental effects is another.
Beyond process, the reforms also reveal a clear philosophical shift. The new regulatory relief provisions elevate private property rights in a way the RMA never did, creating the prospect that new planning restrictions may carry a future obligation to compensate, reduce rates, provide grants, confer development rights, or otherwise soften its impact on affected landowners.
Faced with that prospect, the result may be a subtle chilling effect on plan making, with the most affected planning rule ultimately being the one that never gets proposed.
Critics have also questioned the absence of firm environmental bottom lines and the increased reliance on national direction.
Enter Henry VIII. Constitutional lawyers reserve this reference for provisions that concentrate power in the executive, a fitting tribute to a monarch who was never one to let process stand in the way of his objectives. Supporters see agility; critics see a planning framework that could shift with the political winds, reducing much-needed certainty for long-term projects.
Politically, perhaps the most significant signal is that Labour has indicated it would retain the new framework and seek to improve it rather than repeal it. For now, at least, the replacement of the RMA appears to have a degree of bipartisan staying power.
Amid all the discussion about system design, environmental limits and property rights, one important question remains unanswered: what becomes of the acronym? The RMA may be disappearing, but few practitioners seem eager to introduce themselves as “PA/NEA specialists”. Whoever proudly owns the “RMA” personalised number plate will certainly need to rethink his or her life choices.
Where does this leave local government?
In a word: busy.
Rarely has the sector faced such a concentrated wave of change. New planning legislation, local government reorganisation, infrastructure funding changes, Local Government Act amendments and Public Works Act changes are all landing at once, with little additional resourcing to help absorb them (and potential rates caps adding to the pressure).
The risk is not necessarily the reforms themselves – it is the cumulative weight of implementing them all at once.
Good legislation, poorly implemented, can be worse than no reform at all. The task now is to understand what the reform entails and to position accordingly. Love it or loathe it, this reform suite will reshape local government for a generation.
Surf’s up!
Politicians duck for cover on Head Start