Government reveals new powers in RMA reform
housing politics 9:06 am today
The government will take back power from local councils if their decisions are going to negatively impact economic growth, development or employment. In a speech to business leaders at the Wellington Chamber of Commerce this morning Housing and RMA reform minister Chris Bishop has announced Cabinet will insert a new regulation power into the Resource Management Act. Before a Minister can use the power they would have to investigate the provision in question, check whether its consistent with the national direction under the RMA, and engage with the council. Chris Bishop expects the power to only be necessary until the new planning system is in place, but says it's necessary when councils use their power to stop growth. Political editor Jo Moir was at the Minister's speech this morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Inland Revenue finds $45 million of undeclared tax in horticulture industry from last 10 months
Inland Revenue was pursuing the contracting firms through audits and prosecutions with nearly 100 such audits active at the moment. Photo: Supplied Inland Revenue has found $45 million of undeclared tax in the horticulture industry in just the last 10 months. Spokesperson Tony Morris said they were seeing concerning practices in the sector, that included people being paid under the table. He said some in the sector were still recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle, and dealt with increasing compliance costs and labour shortages, so paying tax could become an afterthought. Morris said Inland Revenue was also seeing cash sales not being reported correctly and withholding tax not being deducted on payments made, deducted at incorrect rates or not being reported. Growers typically hire labour through contracting fims and Morris said it's these firms that try and hide payments. Photo: 123rf Inland Revenue was pursuing the contracting firms through audits and prosecutions with nearly 100 such audits active at the moment. "While many growers are doing things right, they typically hire labour through a contracting firm, which then frequently pays the labourers in cash. Some of these contracting firms then use convoluted business structures to try and hide those payments," Morris said. "Not only does this mean they could avoid their tax, but it also means the labourers can get benefit payments they aren't entitled to or avoid their child support or student loan payments. "Inland Revenue is cracking down on this by requiring many contracting firms to withhold tax from their labourers payments, and pay that directly to IR. Where Inland Revenue identifies growers and other payers not correctly deducting or accounting for the tax, we are also following these up." Morris also said due to the high use of cash and migrant labour in the horticulture industry, it was a sector open to the abuse of workers. He said Inland Revenue worked with other government agencies to address such issues. "Alongside Hort NZ and Zespri, we work hard to ensure growers and contracting firms are aware of what they need to do to get things right, and appreciate the efforts of the many who do get it right." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
an hour 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
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Abuse in care survivors in line for under a third of government's $774m package
Photo: 123RF Less than a third of the government's $774 million abuse in care redress package will end up in the pockets of survivors . Figures obtained by RNZ revealed only $205m was earmarked for paying new claims with $52m to go towards topping up previously closed claims. In defence of the figures, Erica Stanford, the Minister leading the government's abuse in care response, said redress payments were not the most important thing for some survivors and some of the $774m in this year's Budget was going towards changing the care system and providing other supports. However, $92m was for the civil servants who administered the redress funds and another $37m would pay for operating costs like premises and IT. For every two dollars going to survivors, more than a dollar would be spent on administration. Cooper Legal principal partner Sonja Cooper, whose firm had acted for hundreds of abuse survivors and victims, said it was a disgrace. Sonja Cooper Photo: RNZ / Aaron Smale "We were really disappointed with the announcement in any event," Cooper said. "I think now when you break it down, it actually just gets worse. The more information that is received, the more cynical and disappointing what's been offered to survivors is. "I've been reflecting on this because obviously we've seen what other Commonwealth countries have done. We've seen what Australia has done, we've seen what Canada has done, we've seen what Ireland has done and we really are letting everyone down. This must be the worst redress scheme put in place by a government for survivors of abuse in care across the Commonwealth. "I just think that's a disgrace. New Zealand has no excuse for that." The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care had called for a new, independent and survivor-centric redress system. In announcing the $774m Budget package last month, the government also quashed any hope of establishing a new system, saying it would be costly and cause delays . But Cooper said the revelation so much of the government's package would be spent on administration had demonstrated why government officials should not have been trusted with the redress system in the first place. Officials were "taking so much away from the pockets of survivors, who deserve better than this", she said. "It's again, the system looking after itself. It's again, the system taking for itself and giving as little as it can to survivors, while the government continues to crow and pat itself on the back. "This is not a success. This is a failure, and it is a failure in so many ways. All of those who've been advocating for survivors, I've been doing it for 30 years now, I feel like we are back at the start. "This is not going to make survivors go away. It is a temporary fix and all I can hope is that at some stage we have another government that will actually do the right thing for survivors, because this is not." The Royal Commission investigated the cost of abuse in care and estimated it totalled between $96 billion and $217 billion - the vast majority of that was borne by survivors. The government's $289m of funding for financial redress and targeted supported represented just over 1.5 cents for every dollar of harm borne by survivors. In May following the announcement, Stanford called the $774m an investment into redress. "The announcement on Friday was significant," she told the House. "Let's start with that. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars - $774 million, as a pre-budget announcement; the single largest investment into redress in this country's history." Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Stanford was not available for an interview on Tuesday, but in a statement emphasised the funding was not only about redress. "To be clear, the $774 million investment in Budget 2025 was made to improve the redress system and [emphasis added by the Minister's office] improving the safety of children and vulnerable adults in care today. Many survivors have shared that their highest priority is for the system to change so what happened to them is prevented in the future," the statement said. "This includes important investments in initiatives like improving care workforce capability, improvements to safeguarding to reduce abuse and harm to children and young people in care, upgrades to mental health units to improve safety and dignity, more funding for oversight of compulsory mental health and addiction care, funding through the social investment model to fund effective initiatives that prevent entry into care, and upgrading systems to triage and respond to complaints. "It's important to note, that redress is about more than just monetary payments. The $485.5 million redress investment encompasses not only payments, but targeted supports, accessing records, being listened to and apologised to, funding for legal representation, and implementing improvements so that survivors have access to equitable redress regardless of which agency is administering it. That is what survivors have told us is important to them. While there are survivors who may be only interested in receiving financial redress, there are many others for who other aspects are just as important to them as a payment, if not more." The changes announced in this year's Budget would result in the average abuse in care claim payment rising from about $20,000 to about $30,000 - just over one month's salary for Minister Stanford. Keith Wiffin, a survivor who entered state care at 10 years old and sat on the Redress Design Group which provided a report to the government in late 2023, said survivors were grateful for the redress they received but it fell short of the promises the government had made. "Once again it's just not the investment required to bring about resolution and solution," he said. "Obviously, a lot of that money is not going to where it was originally indicated it would go to. It's just not going to bring about resolution - the investment required is more than that. "And I don't want to seem ungrateful because it's taxpayers' money and I am grateful for anything they put in. But it's just a small top up to an existing system which has fundamentally failed in the past." He was also outraged by how much of the funding would be spent on administration of redress. "It just highlights how unjust the whole thing is and how much how much of a misleading presentation by Erica Stanford and co, when they've clearly indicated that that money is to go to survivors," Wiffin said. "It's always the case with state sector redress programmes. There's so much of it gets sucked up by administration costs and various other associated costs and it's just another unjust thing for survivors to have to carry." Wiffin was also still waiting for an explanation as to why the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were dismissed, he said. "It was fairly blunt in terms of dismissing the independent process, just dismissing it," Wiffin said. "I've had no reason why they have done that and I think we are owed that. So that it feels very disrespectful not to offer that explanation. Others may have had some indication, but certainly I haven't."
