Both National and ACT are warning the Government's proposed resource management reform risks creating a system "worse than what we have now".
The Opposition parties argue it will create more bureaucracy and centralisation, and not improve a process the Government says is "broken" and costly for both developers and the wider public.
Meanwhile, the Green Party is expecting to support the new legislation at first reading so it heads to public consultation, but says it "falls short of what is required".
Environment Minister David Parker on Tuesday morning unveiled the Government's long-awaited changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA).
There's cross-party acknowledgement the current system is overly complicated and benefits neither developments nor the environment.
Two new pieces of legislation are being introduced to the House this week which ministers promise will bring down consenting costs, reduce waiting times, and also protect the environment. A third Bill will be revealed next year focused on climate change effects.
It's a significant overhaul, but the central point is that a new national framework will guide 15 regional committees to write local plans. These will replace more than 100 current district and regional plans, making planning and consenting rules more consistent. The regional committees will also develop 30-year spatial strategies outlining centres' long-term plans.
There will also be new environmental limits and targets - for things like air quality or water - that developments will have to occur within.
"Developers, infrastructure providers and businesses will see the largest cost savings as consent volumes and costs decrease, saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year," said Parker.
"Benefits will flow to the public through cost savings for housing and fewer consents. The environmental benefits - which cannot be valued in dollar terms - will be substantial."
But National, which supports reform, expects the new legislation "is likely worse than what we have now".
"National's simple test on RMA reform is whether it will make it easier to get things done - like building the houses New Zealand desperately needs and addressing our infrastructure deficit - while pragmatically protecting the environment," said housing spokesperson Chris Bishop.
"We will be carefully considering the Bills but we are deeply sceptical that Labour's reforms will meet this test. The new Bills will add yet more bureaucracy, add more complexity to the system, introduce significant legal uncertainty, and risk repeating the mistakes of the past."
National leader Christopher Luxon said the Government has taken a 900-page piece of legislation and replaced it with a new Bill that's about 800 pages.
"There's not a lot of reduction in bureaucracy, uncertainty, complexity and speed of implementation. We need to be much more agile much, much quicker."
He also took issue with it taking 10 years to fully implement the new system.
"That's just way too long," Luxon said. "We need to get moving. We've got an infrastructure challenge in this country. We need to get houses built. We have a supply-side problem. We need an RMA that actually unlocks and gets things done."
The Government plans to introduce the changes in tranches, starting with three "model regions". New projects in those regions will "test and demonstrate the workability of the new system and "to provide learnings" for further tranches.
Bishop said it was "astounding" that after five years in office, "this is the best Labour can come up with".
The proposed legislation is very similar to recommendations made to the Government by the Randerson Panel. In 2019, the Government appointed a panel led by Tony Randerson KC to review the resource management system. It found the legislation to be complex and in need of reform, and suggested the two new pieces of legislation revealed on Tuesday.
Grant Robertson, the acting Prime Minister and Infrastructure Minister, said National had nine years in Government to fix the RMA, but failed to.
"We put forward a proposal that will reduce costs for users, that will give more certainty and consistency. I think I'd rather stand on our record than theirs," Robertson said.
ACT is also claiming the Government's proposals are just a "retread" of the current RMA.
"Like Labour's healthcare, polytechnic, and three waters reforms, the reforms are more focused on the administrative structure for Government employees than the outcome for people," said leader David Seymour.
"Taking 100 plans down to 15 sounds great, but the content of these plans will be little changed because we are saying a change in administration rather than a change of principle.
"Centralisation is unpopular because it often fails. The reality of this reform is that a new and more centralised bureaucracy will write plans with different headings but the same basic content. Little really changes from the point of a property owner."
Seymour said the concept of resource management is "fundamentally flawed" as a council is deciding what someone does on their own land.
"ACT says that what we need is a property rights-based system. The only rights people should have to object is if someone else's actions are affecting your own property."
The Green Party believes the Government's brought "into the outdated idea that there is a trade-off between quality infrastructure and good environmental outcomes".
Environment spokesperson Eugenie Sage said "this just isn't true".
"Over the next 30 years we will need to build new warm, dry, energy-efficient housing; more renewable energy capacity; and more carbon-zero transport options like rail.
"At the same time we need to protect and restore coastal and estuarine areas, remaining wetlands, native shrublands, forests and waterways.
"We also need to see a step change for urban trees to ensure our towns and cities are more resilient to warming temperatures, and pleasant places to live which benefit our mental and physical wellbeing. "
She said the Green Party caucus needs to decide whether it will support the new legislation at first reading, but she believes it should go to select committee so politicians can hear public submissions.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown responded to the Government's announcement by congratulating Parker.
“For more than a quarter century, successive governments have talked about fixing the Resource Management Act but none has got as far as David Parker," he said.
"Two bills before Parliament is at least progress, for which David Parker should be congratulated.
"My councillors and I will now analyse the legislation against the Government’s tests of making the system faster, cheaper and better, with greater certainty and less complexity for everyone, and instruct officers to prepare a submission accordingly."
Parker on Tuesday said reform to the RMA is necessary as the current system is "broken", "takes too long" and "costs too much".
He said council fees for notified consents have more than doubled between 2015 and 2019, with the cost of infrastructure projects up 70 percent over the same period. In some cases, consenting costs are 5.5 percent of the total project costs for some infrastructure developers.
Time to consent infrastructure projects rose by 150 percent between 2010 and 2014, and between 2015 and 2019.
The new system will mean for every $1 spent, between $2.58 and $4.90 will be reaped in benefits, Parker said. Conservative modelling shows the cost to users will fall by 19 percent a year - $149m - which could mean savings of more than $10 billion over 30 years.
He said the time taken to receive a consent will be "substantially lower" under the new system.
