As part of its commitment to overarching resource management reform, the Government recently passed into law the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025 (Amendment Act) which introduces significant reforms to the compliance and enforcement framework of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
These reforms, most of which came into force on 21 August 2025, are not just technical changes. The sharp increase in fines, new enforcement powers, and ability to consider compliance history will put pressure on both councils and the Courts. The real questions, as we see them, are:
- will these changes result in a reduction in environmental offending; and
- how will the courts respond?
The changes include:
- Significantly increasing maximum fines for RMA offending, while reducing the maximum term of imprisonment.
- Enabling abatement notices to be issued in a wider range of circumstances.
- Expanding the scope of enforcement orders to allow resource consents to be suspended or revoked where there are significant and ongoing non-compliances.
- Insurance can no longer be used to pay fines for RMA offending.
A number of these provisions were originally included in the short-lived Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA), including the increased penalties. While the repeal of the NBEA meant these measures were briefly lost, their reintroduction in the Amendment Act provides important continuity for councils and reinforces the Government’s focus on stronger environmental regulation.
Maximum fines / reduced prison terms
Section 339 of the RMA has been amended to substantially increase maximum fines. For individuals, the maximum has risen from $300,000 to $1,000,000, and for companies from $600,000 to $10,000,000. These are headline-grabbing figures, but the courts now face a challenge: how are these applied? Will we see increases across all manner of offending? Or will there be sharper increases for certain types of offending?
Infringements
The Resource Management (Infringement Offences) Amendment Regulations 2025 has increased infringement fees and introduced differentiation between individuals and companies, ensuring penalties better align with the wider RMA regime.
Previously set between $300 and $1,000, fees now range from $600 and $2,000 for individuals and $1,200 and $4,000 for companies.
These increases reflect a deliberate intent to enhance the deterrent effect of infringement notices. Councils should review and update their infringement protocols to reflect the new fee schedule and give serious consideration to the impact on these changes on their infringement processes.
Abatement notices
The amendments to s 322 of the RMA are very much welcomed – they expand and clarify the scope of abatement notices – being a council’s final directive tool in its toolbox before needing court intervention.
Previously, enforcement officers could only require action if it was necessary both to ensure compliance and to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse environmental effect, but the revised provision now allows officers to require action either:
- to ensure compliance with the RMA, national environmental standards, regulations, plan or proposed plan rules, or resource consents; or
- to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment.
Enforcement orders
The Amendment Act adds a further ground to s 314(1)(ea), enabling a local authority, a consent authority, or the EPA to apply for an enforcement order to revoke or suspend a resource consent (in whole or in part for a specified period) where there has been significant non-compliance. This may apply if the non-compliance is:
- ongoing or repeated; and
- if a company, has been the subject of an enforcement order or a conviction under the RMA;
- if an individual, has been the subject of an enforcement order or a conviction under the RMA within the past 7 years.
These provisions place greater emphasis on holding consent-holders and applicants to account for poor compliance histories. The Courts will ultimately define what constitutes ‘significant’ or ‘ongoing/repeated’ non-compliance, but councils should consider this tool when dealing with repeat offenders.
Cost recovery
Section 36 of the RMA has been broadened to enable councils to recover costs from a wider range of parties, including:
- permitted activities, where monitoring is required even if no resource consent is in place;
- suspected breaches, allowing charges to be imposed while investigations are underway, even before formal enforcement action is taken; and
- abatement notices and enforcement orders, with costs associated with issuing, administering, and monitoring these instruments now recoverable.
These changes reinforce the “polluter pays” principle and supports councils in developing sustainable funding mechanisms for compliance functions and enabling more proactive enforcement.
Insurance
A new provision, s 342A, makes it unlawful to insure against fines imposed under the RMA. The aim is to prevent offenders from shifting the financial burden of non-compliance, and to ensure that penalties act as a genuine deterrent. Watch this space as to how this will be applied alongside the increased penalties.
Conclusion
The real test of these reforms will not be the words in the statute, but how they play out in the courtroom and council offices over the next few years. Councils should be prepared to test these new and amended tools, and the courts will be required to set the tone for how tough the new regime really is.
If you would like advice on updating your infringement protocols or enforcement, compliance and monitoring policies to reflect these changes, please contact our Regulatory Team, we’re here to help.
