November 12, 2026

Without Bishop, development law becomes a coalition bargaining chip

A construction site with a crane and a partially built residential building under a clear blue sky.

Chris Bishop designed New Zealand’s fast-track regime and the ‘bedrock’ law meant to replace the RMA. He will not be in Parliament to run either. With his loss in Hutt South and National failing to pick up a single list seat, effective control of both regimes shifts to ACT and NZ First if the coalition returns.

That is not a personnel footnote. It turns development law into a live bargaining chip at the exact moment developers, councils and investors need certainty most.

A system built around one desk

The New Zealand Initiative put the problem bluntly the day before the result became clear. The new planning framework is a ‘funnel’, with the minister setting national direction and everything flowing down through regional and district plans. Even the main safeguard, the Urban Land Market Officer, ‘must apply national instruments, and the Minister sets those instruments.’

The Initiative called it ‘a fundamentally fragile structure dependent on the character of the Minister at the top of the funnel, and consequently on the coalition politics that decides who will be Minister.’ Its warning is the one business should take seriously: put a NIMBY at the top and ‘it will be a national tragedy.’

The Conversation flags the same risk from the other direction. The new laws give ministers greater powers to override environmental limits when setting national direction, and marine biodiversity protection has already shifted from regional councils to MPI. Discretion cuts both ways. A pro-growth minister can use it to unblock projects; a hostile one can use it to freeze them.

Two partners, two instincts

ACT and NZ First want different things from this machinery, and that is the core tension.

ACT co-designed the RMA replacement through Simon Court around private property rights. Its instinct is fewer ministerial levers and a cleaner rules-based system. ACT was uncomfortable with parts of fast-track, with columnist Matthew Hooton noting the party likened elements of it to ‘Muldoonery’.

NZ First wants the opposite. In February 2026 it said it would campaign on ministers getting the final say on fast-track projects, reversing the select committee change that handed final decisions to independent expert panels. Shane Jones said then: ‘I always wanted ministers to be making the decisions.’ Christopher Luxon rejected the idea at the time, saying fast-track was working ‘exceptionally well’. By June, Jones was pushing to strip fast-track administration from the EPA altogether.

Those positions do not reconcile neatly. One side wants rules; the other wants ministers. With National’s main advocate for the existing balance gone, the compromise will be struck in coalition talks rather than on the merits.

What is already in the pipe

The stakes are not theoretical. By August, 32 projects had been approved: 13 housing developments, 8 renewable energy projects and 7 infrastructure projects, with only 4 referrals declined. Of 219 projects under consideration, 93 were housing. Five mayors, including Auckland’s and Queenstown’s, had publicly opposed the process.

Councils have a costed grievance too. Auckland Council estimated a $450-650 million hit to ratepayers from approved projects such as Sunfield and Delmore. A rushed amendment lets councils claw back development contributions from future fast-track developers, but not retrospectively. LGNZ wants a pause on referrals, mandatory cumulative effects assessment and full cost recovery. Expect all three on the negotiating table.

The regime’s design was always unusual. Back in January 2025, the Auditor-General’s office recorded that Cabinet approved 149 projects into Schedule 2, naming them directly in primary legislation. Hooton called that ‘constitutionally outrageous’. Whatever its merits, projects listed by political choice can be reconsidered by political choice.

Bishop’s benchmark leaves with him

In September, Bishop said he expected the new planning system to make fast-track unnecessary within three to five years, adding: ‘In five years’ time, if things haven’t panned out as such, I will consider the reforms to have failed.’ In August he insisted fast-track was ‘working well’ despite the housing backlash.

That was a personal standard. It carries no institutional weight, and nothing binds his successor to it.

The Conversation’s data also undercuts the case for permanent emergency powers: 92-96% of resource consents were granted annually over the decade before reform. The real problem was always cost, delay and uncertainty, not outright refusal. A regime that swaps bureaucratic uncertainty for political uncertainty has not solved it.

What business should watch

Four questions will decide whether the coming term is good or bad for anyone building something. Do ministers regain final sign-off? Does the EPA keep the process? Do councils win retrospective cost recovery? And who writes the national direction sitting above every plan in the country?

The pro-growth case for RMA reform was sound. The weakness was building it around one capable minister. Until coalition talks settle who holds the pen, every developer, renewables investor and miner with a project in the pipeline is pricing capital against rules that could change by Christmas.

Sources

Reader Poll · 5 questions

Do you agree or disagree with the following?

Companies should drop diversity hiring targets.

Related Posts
Community

Join the discussion

Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.

Create a commenter account

Enter the name you want shown publicly and your email. We will email you a password-set link; you cannot comment until you use it.

Your email is used for sign-in and account security. It is not published with comments.

Subscribe for weekly news

Subscribe For Weekly News

* indicates required