
The government is fed up with councils taking the piss on housing
An artist's impression of councils' piss-taking apparatus, and Chris Bishop (; design The Spinoff)
They've built aqueducts for the piss. A state-of-the-art municipal pipe network purely for transporting the piss.
Chris Bishop started his speech at the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday paying tribute to an unlikely list of allies. Labour's Phil Twyford deserved 'great credit' for pushing through the pro-housing National Policy Statement on Urban Development in mid-2020. Wellington City councillor and Green Party candidate Rebecca Matthews had the commitment and tenacity to push for a district plan that 'actually supports and enables growth' over the despairing cries of independent commissioners who spent several thousand words arguing a train is not a train .
But when it came time to talk about local government at large, the mood soured. It was 'inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable' that councils had been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand, Bishop said. To say they'd dragged their feet on following government instructions to zone for more apartments and townhouses was 'an understatement'. The minister didn't state it outright, but a sophisticated analysis of his speech by The Spinoff has revealed a clear message: councils have been absolutely taking the piss on housing.
The NPS-UD, which called for local governments to allow apartments around rapid transit, was passed in 2020. Its successor, the MDRS, which ordered them to zone for up to three townhouses on almost every residential section, was passed in 2021. Several councils have spent large chunks of the years since drilling boreholes to access reservoirs of the piss. Building aqueducts for the piss. Constructing municipal pipe networks entirely for transporting the piss. Image: Getty Images/Tina Tiller
The most elaborate systems have been developed in our two largest cities. Auckland, when faced with instructions to upzone places with good access to the city centre and rapid transit, spent months creating a bespoke, legally adventurous system to prevent any development near the villas with good access to the city centre and rapid transit . Its efforts to enshrine 'special character' areas in amber were so clearly contrary to the spirit of the law that one Labour MP who helped write the MDRS spluttered incredulously over the phone when talking about them, repeating 'it's just something they've made up', and 'I don't know where they've dreamed it up'.
After spending all its time checking the 'architectural integrity' of renovated villas rather than looking at actual barriers to development such as flood risk, Auckland Council complained it had been forced to upzone flood-prone areas and asked for an extension on implementing the law. Bishop, presumably after giving a sigh like a tomb door swinging open, granted its request .
Even these efforts fall short of the creative piss extraction and transportation technology on display in Christchurch, where in 2022 the council pioneered a novel approach to democracy and political authority by simply voting not to follow the law . It followed that with an attempt to introduce new development restrictions on all residential sites to ensure access to the city's special sunlight. Christchurch residents have proved resistant to other regionally specific lawmaking, such as my proposal to tax Aucklanders at a reduced rate to offset the city's high cost of living.
Through all of this, council planners have continued to deny developments for myriad creative reasons , including insulting the memory of trains that didn't exist, compromising motorway drivers' connection to a small hill, or sullying the heritage value of a Mobil station and a carpark.
Even several councillors spoken to by The Spinoff conceded their colleagues have been too focused on harvesting water, bodily waste, salt and electrolytes. 'Yes we have taken the piss,' said Christchurch councillor Andreij Moore. His council hadn't acted strategically. '[We] tried to object to intensification everywhere we possibly could and delay as many years as we could.'
Auckland councillor Shane Henderson was initially reluctant to make the same admission, but folded after being furnished with some specific examples. 'OK look, they have been taking the piss in some ways, but it's getting better. Attempting to put heritage protections on a gravel pit on K Rd is definitely taking the piss,' he said. He quickly remembered another example. 'OK I'll also contend that putting special character protections on a vast majority of several city-area suburbs is also taking the piss.' Henderson was then reminded about the complicated system his council developed to assess those 'character' areas. 'Yep, taking the piss, I agree,' he said.
It's clear that Bishop has had it up to here with all this. 'Yes,' he replied In response to a direct, on the record, yes or no question from The Spinoff on whether councils have been taking the piss on housing. In recent months, he's rejected Christchurch council's proposed special sunlight housing exemption, and asked Auckland Council to please for the love of God finally upzone around the City Rail Link that it and the government have just spent nearly $6 billion on. The Spinoff responded with the thumbs up emoji
In his speech on Wednesday, he revealed another new tool in the piss-taking prevention toolbox. If the government deems that councils have been negatively impacting 'economic growth, development capacity, or employment', it will be allowed to override their district plans. It's an extreme measure, and one Bishop said would only be in place until larger Resource Management Act reforms are passed. But if councils are offended, they could stand to look out the window at the vast apparatus they built for extracting, processing and distributing the piss across town centres and suburbs. Now they've been ordered to tear down that industrial-scale operation they've spent years constructing, perhaps we can finally build some houses instead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Government gives itself new RMA powers to override councils
The government has given itself new powers to override councils, if they their decisions will negatively impact economic growth, development or employment. Housing and RMA reform minister Chris Bishop has said the new regulation would stop councils stalling on housing developments. But the opposition said Bishop is annointing himself the chief council despot and it's a massive over-reach. While councils said they shouldn't be blamed for a lack of housing growth. Political reporter Giles Dexter reports. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.


The Spinoff
6 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The government is fed up with councils taking the piss on housing
An artist's impression of councils' piss-taking apparatus, and Chris Bishop (; design The Spinoff) They've built aqueducts for the piss. A state-of-the-art municipal pipe network purely for transporting the piss. Chris Bishop started his speech at the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday paying tribute to an unlikely list of allies. Labour's Phil Twyford deserved 'great credit' for pushing through the pro-housing National Policy Statement on Urban Development in mid-2020. Wellington City councillor and Green Party candidate Rebecca Matthews had the commitment and tenacity to push for a district plan that 'actually supports and enables growth' over the despairing cries of independent commissioners who spent several thousand words arguing a train is not a train . But when it came time to talk about local government at large, the mood soured. It was 'inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable' that councils had been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand, Bishop said. To say they'd dragged their feet on following government instructions to zone for more apartments and townhouses was 'an understatement'. The minister didn't state it outright, but a sophisticated analysis of his speech by The Spinoff has revealed a clear message: councils have been absolutely taking the piss on housing. The NPS-UD, which called for local governments to allow apartments around rapid transit, was passed in 2020. Its successor, the MDRS, which ordered them to zone for up to three townhouses on almost every residential section, was passed in 2021. Several councils have spent large chunks of the years since drilling boreholes to access reservoirs of the piss. Building aqueducts for the piss. Constructing municipal pipe networks entirely for transporting the piss. Image: Getty Images/Tina Tiller The most elaborate systems have been developed in our two largest cities. Auckland, when faced with instructions to upzone places with good access to the city centre and rapid transit, spent months creating a bespoke, legally adventurous system to prevent any development near the villas with good access to the city centre and rapid transit . Its efforts to enshrine 'special character' areas in amber were so clearly contrary to the spirit of the law that one Labour MP who helped write the MDRS spluttered incredulously over the phone when talking about them, repeating 'it's just something they've made up', and 'I don't know where they've dreamed it up'. After spending all its time checking the 'architectural integrity' of renovated villas rather than looking at actual barriers to development such as flood risk, Auckland Council complained it had been forced to upzone flood-prone areas and asked for an extension on implementing the law. Bishop, presumably after giving a sigh like a tomb door swinging open, granted its request . Even these efforts fall short of the creative piss extraction and transportation technology on display in Christchurch, where in 2022 the council pioneered a novel approach to democracy and political authority by simply voting not to follow the law . It followed that with an attempt to introduce new development restrictions on all residential sites to ensure access to the city's special sunlight. Christchurch residents have proved resistant to other regionally specific lawmaking, such as my proposal to tax Aucklanders at a reduced rate to offset the city's high cost of living. Through all of this, council planners have continued to deny developments for myriad creative reasons , including insulting the memory of trains that didn't exist, compromising motorway drivers' connection to a small hill, or sullying the heritage value of a Mobil station and a carpark. Even several councillors spoken to by The Spinoff conceded their colleagues have been too focused on harvesting water, bodily waste, salt and electrolytes. 'Yes we have taken the piss,' said Christchurch councillor Andreij Moore. His council hadn't acted strategically. '[We] tried to object to intensification everywhere we possibly could and delay as many years as we could.' Auckland councillor Shane Henderson was initially reluctant to make the same admission, but folded after being furnished with some specific examples. 'OK look, they have been taking the piss in some ways, but it's getting better. Attempting to put heritage protections on a gravel pit on K Rd is definitely taking the piss,' he said. He quickly remembered another example. 'OK I'll also contend that putting special character protections on a vast majority of several city-area suburbs is also taking the piss.' Henderson was then reminded about the complicated system his council developed to assess those 'character' areas. 'Yep, taking the piss, I agree,' he said. It's clear that Bishop has had it up to here with all this. 'Yes,' he replied In response to a direct, on the record, yes or no question from The Spinoff on whether councils have been taking the piss on housing. In recent months, he's rejected Christchurch council's proposed special sunlight housing exemption, and asked Auckland Council to please for the love of God finally upzone around the City Rail Link that it and the government have just spent nearly $6 billion on. The Spinoff responded with the thumbs up emoji In his speech on Wednesday, he revealed another new tool in the piss-taking prevention toolbox. If the government deems that councils have been negatively impacting 'economic growth, development capacity, or employment', it will be allowed to override their district plans. It's an extreme measure, and one Bishop said would only be in place until larger Resource Management Act reforms are passed. But if councils are offended, they could stand to look out the window at the vast apparatus they built for extracting, processing and distributing the piss across town centres and suburbs. Now they've been ordered to tear down that industrial-scale operation they've spent years constructing, perhaps we can finally build some houses instead.

RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
National's Erica Stanford clashes with Labour MPs over redress system for survivors abused in state care
Erica Stanford, left, and Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ National Minister Erica Stanford's scrutiny hearing descended into a political slinging match between the minister and two Labour MPs as they clashed over the redress system for survivors abused in state care. Stanford, who in charge of the government's response, faced a grilling from Opposition MPs at Parliament on Wednesday over why an independent agency hadn't been set up to deliver on a recommendation from the Royal Commission and survivors, and why ministers considered limiting redress for gang members . Labour's Jan Tinetti told the committee a "key fundamental recommendation that survivors asked for" was an independent entity so that the state - the abuser - wasn't dealing with survivors directly as part of the redress. "The Crown had been the abuser and we are hearing daily, and we heard it today, the survivors are still feeling like the Crown is abusing them because their voice has been taken away," Tinetti said. Tinetti asked Stanford why the government didn't take that into account and commit to a new system . Stanford said "many people going through the system are very happy with the service they're getting, of course there are some people who are not". When advice was sought on a new independent agency she said she was told: "It may not be any better than we have now and I wasn't prepared to go through that huge cost, huge time, and huge complexity to maybe not have a better outcome". Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone But Stanford noted an independent agency wasn't off the cards completely in the future. However, she went on to say, "it's bewildering to me that you have such an obsession with these large complex independent agencies when the experience of late has been, when we have set these up - like Te Pukenga" the outcomes have been worse. Tinetti was education minister under the previous government that oversaw Te Pukenga, which the coalition government is unwinding. "I'd also like to point out the redress report that was delivered was in 2021, the previous government had a very long time to act on that - it called for an independent agency back then," Stanford said. Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That remark prompted Labour's Willow-Jean Prime to interject and say a working group was set-up to design it under the previous government. Tinetti then called a point of order to mount a defence. "I'd just like to remind that this is estimates looking forward and Chris Hipkins did apologise during his speech on the 12th of November in the House, and offered to work with the government on this. "We don't need to go backwards... We want to know what the minister is doing, we don't need to know what the previous government didn't do, we've already acknowledged we could have moved faster. We've already made that apology," she said. Speaking to the point of order, Stanford said she had been "directly challenged" and wanted to respond. A back and forth of jabs continued between Stanford, Prime, and Tinetti. "I know you don't like to hear this," the minister commented, which Prime responded to by saying, "you're disingenuous, let's be honest", while Tinetti muttered in the background "appalling, you are disappointing minister". The National and New Zealand First members of the committee sat in silence as the war of words played out. Earlier in the hearing, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson raised questions about why advice had been sought on whether to limit redress for gang members. Ultimately, ministers chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor, but create a new pathway for serious offenders. Stanford said she sought advice on a range of things. "Everyone has different opinions and ideas and views. We took everything into account, I sought advice on a range of different things - it doesn't necessarily mean I believed that thing or wanted that thing - but it's important as a lawmaker... when you take your job responsibly to look at every possible thing," she said. "I needed to make sure I had all of the evidence at hand." Davidson queried why she even needed to ask about limiting redress for gang members when it "sends a message that the real violence that happened is only validated for some people and not others". Stanford responded saying she went out of her way and "called gang members and invited them personally to the apology, into Parliament... that tells you everything you need to know about my beliefs". Without all the evidence though, Stanford said she would have exposed herself to being an "uninformed lawmaker".