logo
Minister Shane Jones accuses council of being 'iwi back office'

Minister Shane Jones accuses council of being 'iwi back office'

RNZ News7 hours ago

The Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones wants politicians to ask ratepayers if regional councils are value for money.
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
The Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones says problems in regional councils are "hobbling" economic progress.
Last week, Jones told a forum New Zealand First did not see a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist after changes to the Resource Management Act came into effect.
However, Bay of Plenty Regional Council chair Doug Leeder says scrapping regional councils is not in the interest of the wider community or the environment
He was reacting after Jones told
Morning Report
regional councils such as Otago and Waikato were standing in the way of mining and marine farming permits.
"In 2012 the Waikato Regional Council itself made a submission to the Productivity Commission and it identified that co-ordination and a host of other problems was actually hobbling its ability to contribute towards productivity.
"If we don't have mining, if we don't have marine farming then a lot of the regional areas of New Zealand they're going to be blighted," Jones said.
The councils represented a small part of a case for a "broader rationalisation" which he intended to put before his party in the lead up to next election.
"New Zealand politicians should ask the public: Do they feel that the current system, is it generating ratepayer value? Is it actually delivering economic growth at a time where the narrative we have - as a government - is to boost economic growth, to generate the surplus so we can afford the services that we take for granted," Jones said.
The influence of iwi and the creeping scope of co-governance initiatives had extended beyond initial intent.
"I'm deeply concerned that the Waikato Regional council is turning into some sort of iwi back office.
"I think that there's a host of other challenges though where [council] staff are hobbling economic development such as an unwillingness to support mining in Otago where they've dredged up some dead moth," Jones said.
Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop said the changes the government was making will look at the functions and responsibilities of regional councils.
Bishop said the reform process has implications for regional councils, as they do a range of things such as public transport, natural hazard management, and environmental monitoring and planning.
He said Jones was giving his party view but he could understand his frustration with regional councils.
Doug Leeder
Photo:
NZME
Bay of Plenty Regional Council chair Doug Leeder says passing off regional council's responsibilities onto another agency will not alter the challenges associated with their functions.
Councils gained a raft of important responsibilities from regional catchment boards in the late eighties.
"They include really important functions such as the stewardship of land, water and air, therefore the environmental issues. There's rivers, drainage, flood protection schemes, you've got public transport delivery, emergency management functions, regional planning functions, bio-security, bio-diversity as a starter.
"So when we understand those and we understand how they are best delivered then that's the start of the conversation rather than the unilateral just getting rid of councils," Leeder said.
Councils were open to discussions on streamlining those functions if the tasks were underpinned by good, solid governance.
"Let's be upfront, some of the consenting processes across the country in terms of the RMA [Resoruce Management Act} and getting infrastructure and delivery of services are really complex, they are really expensive and they need review. The regional sector of Local Government New Zealand has been advocating for this for a significant period of time," Leeder said.
Scrapping regional councils and their associated functions was not in the interest of the wider community or the environment, he told
Morning Report
.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Govt presses for taller buildings around some Auckland train stations
Govt presses for taller buildings around some Auckland train stations

1News

timean hour ago

  • 1News

Govt presses for taller buildings around some Auckland train stations

The Government is allowing greater housing and development around some Auckland train stations, preparing for an increase in demand with the new City Rail Link. Previously, the Government said Auckland Council must enable a minimum of no less than six storeys in a walkable distance around the Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside stations. The change was intended to reflect "higher demand for housing and business' in these areas. Now, it said the changes, outlined in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, "didn't go far enough" – and would require upzoning allowing buildings of at least 15 storeys high around those stations. It also added the Mt Albert and Baldwin Avenue stations to the list, requiring upzoning allowing buildings in these areas of at least 10 storeys high. ADVERTISEMENT Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Auckland Minister Simeon Brown said the Mt Albert and Baldwin stations were "ripe for development", sited close to the Unitec campus and Mt Albert's popular shops and cafes. 'The Government is determined to fix our housing crisis and a key step toward that is unlocking housing capacity in Auckland. The best place to start is by building housing around high quality public transport.' Brown said the CRL was a 'game-changing investment in the future of Auckland'. 'It will unlock significant economic opportunity, but only if we have a planning system to allow businesses and residents to take advantage of it.' Bishop said the City Rail Link was a more than $5 billion investment in Auckland's continued growth. 'Enabling greater housing intensification along this corridor will help us maximise the benefits of this investment and provide more homes in a city geared up for growth.' 'The Resource Management (Consenting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill allows Auckland Council to withdraw its intensification plan change, PC78, with a requirement to notify a new plan change by 10 October this year. The upzoning we're announcing today will be incorporated into that new plan change.'

Oral Answers for 25 June 2025
Oral Answers for 25 June 2025

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Oral Answers for 25 June 2025

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the Government's statements and actions? DANA KIRKPATRICK to the Minister of Finance: What is the Depositor Compensation Scheme and when does it start? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement, "The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless"; if so, are current levels of bycatch acceptable? Hon KIERAN McANULTY to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many New Zealanders are homeless now, compared to when the Government was elected? TODD STEPHENSON to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI to the Minister of Statistics: How will he ensure that scrapping the five-yearly Census will not magnify the problem of under-counting Maori and Pasifika populations? RIMA NAKHLE to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand's infrastructure sector? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by statements made on her behalf that high inflation and high interest rates were main factors in job losses in the construction sector? CHLÖE SWARBRICK to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement that "it is our expectation that we will remain an associate member" of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance; if not, why not? MILES ANDERSON to the Minister of Agriculture: Why is the Government proposing to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions on our highest quality productive land? INGRID LEARY to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by statements made on his behalf that his proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 would "include provisions for repayments but not mandate them"? TOM RUTHERFORD to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements have been made for the assessment and prescription for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.

The House: Parliament's reaction to the Middle East crisis
The House: Parliament's reaction to the Middle East crisis

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

The House: Parliament's reaction to the Middle East crisis

Winston Peters speaking in the debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority. The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions. Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way. "The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so." The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East. Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region. "We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. "What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. "Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end." Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it. They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic. There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it. Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates. Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with". "We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. "If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support." Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence. Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply. "Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. "And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons." While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister. After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran. Marama Davidson speaking in the debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat. "I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said. "We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation." After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle. "Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store