The RMA Reform Minister says there's been a "mad rush" for councils and iwi to secure deals before the concept is scrapped.
The Government had initially planned for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe to be transferred to the new Resource Management Act system.
But that will no longer be the case, the Government arguing these agreements have become out-of-scope and unfit for purpose.
Minister Chris Bishop told Mike Hosking the focus will instead be on identifying sites of cultural significance.
He says most New Zealanders would agree pā sites and burial sites should be exempt from development.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right, the Prime Minister. It was this time yesterday, in fact,
was previewing it. And that's why I serious you. If
you were listening to the interview, you head a strange
lock on his face, and I said, when are you
going to do this? And he suddenly goes rid. He's
not a good lie, the Prime Minister. He suddenly goes
red in the face and he starts going on this
couple of weeks, next couple of weeks, and I'm thinking.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Whatever, mate.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Anyway, the intervention was on the way between these deals
between locally wei and councils when it comes to planning
and making decisions. Ever since the RAMA reform was introduced,
as you well aware, various councils have been rushing to
these deals to try and circumvent the new rules. Well,
yesterday the handbrake got put on. Chris Bishop is the
RAMA Reform Minister, and he is with us, good morning,
good morning. Now you're still correct me if I'm wrong,
(00:39):
you're still letting some of these deals through. Correct.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
No, the Monte deals, anything that's already in existence or
as being signed right now, they won't exist. We're basically
scrapping the entire concept of them. So the ones that
have been done in the last few months, and there's
been a massive mad rush as you know, and you've
been talking about mic over the last few months gone,
they won't be transitioning into the new system.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So what role will maori be allowed to have post
your reform?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So the focus is on making sure it's at the
spatial planning level around the identification of sites of significance.
So I think most people would say, listen, when you're
doing a plan for a region, you want to pick
the sites where there's an old PA site for example,
or there's an old burial ground for example, or there's
particular sites of the significant significant to the local mana Fenua.
(01:30):
I think most kiwis would say, yep, you know what,
we should actually make sure that people know about where
those sites are so that you can't do particular types
of developments on those sites.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
So that's where the focus will be.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
We've really significantly narrowed the scope of the system around
to essentially around sites of significance and things like that.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Okay, so why were you in favor of these deals
broadly up until yesterday, Because it's not like they got
invented yesterday. They've been around for a while. It's just
there was a rush on what was accepted that.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, it's not that we were in favor of them,
it's just that there were only eight of them.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Yeah, you were putting up with them.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, it was a bit of a hangover. And look,
it was a bill. On was the bill.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
When we introduced that, you know, people said, oh, well,
there's only eight of them, they seem to be working. Okay,
just let them go through to the keeper within the
scope of the new system.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So we said, okay, well fair enough.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, well, you know, I mean we didn't get everything
right on first didn't get everything right at first first
time around.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
It's but what you did, what you did promises a
government is a coalition in every party was a member
to It was the demarification of this country and people
been given jobs based on race to make decisions that
weren't publicly elected. Is not what you promised you would do.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Well, that's not what's happening with the new planning system.
In fact, we've worked really hard. There's no Treaty Principal's
clause in the new planning system. We've deleted the idea
of the treaty principles. In the new planning system, there
is provisions to give effect to as I say, sites
of significance to ma for example, and local EWEI, and
I think most people would regard that as important. But
(03:04):
there is no treaty principal's clause in the bill. There's
a very narrowly scoped goal in the bill around Maurray
interests and around the giving effect to local EWE interests
and protection of Mari land, which again I think most
kiwis would say is pretty important after the alienation of
one hundred and fifty years. So we have really you know,
I've worked really hard alongside Simon Court and others to
(03:26):
get what I think is a good balance here and
make sure that we streamline the system, cut the red
tape and in some of the practices that I know
you've been talking about on the show over the last
few years.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Okay, Cement, are they playing you flinchers?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, I don't. I don't think they're playing us.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
And I tell you this, and you know, free frankness,
that we we go into this, you know, not not
wild about it, Frankly. I mean, no government wants to
put its hand in its pocket for you know, sixty
million bucks for a corporate However, on the other hand,
it is an exceptional case and we thought about it
quite deeply. It's our only domestic manufacturer of cement. It
(04:08):
is critical to the supply chain. The stuff they make,
the clinker is sort of intermediate part of the supply
chain is very important and ministers were just simply not
willing to see that.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Fall over. And that was the reality.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, but did they threaten you because they're not sure
they could drum up sixty million.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Well, we did an open book exercise looking at their financials.
They made it all freely and openly available. The challenges,
the emissions costs that are coming as a result of
the emissions trading scheme from twenty thirty onwards, which do
render that plant unviable or at least arguably uneconomic. And
(04:49):
so we've done a deal. We've made an investment, they've
agreed to keep it open. They've agreed to allied investments
of around one hundred and fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
On top of that, it will improve and will maintain.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Deployment in a relatively deprived part of New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
We don't, well, it's whether it's election year or not.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
To be honest, it's a kind of irrelevant because if
this has happened last year or next year, I think
I think the government would be well, this is what
happens in government, right, You get confronted with difficult decisions.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
And I don't pretend that this was an easy one.
It isn't.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
And you know, I didn't get into politics to give
money to corporates, but sometimes you know you've got to
You've got to do the do the right thing of
a national interest.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
That's what makes us such an interesting story. Why don't
you just change the etes? Why are we mucking around
with CEMENTA? I mean, if it's going to mean why
why are we why are we taxing ourselves into joblessness?
What's the point of that?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Well, there are challenges with the ETS settings, you're right,
But at the end of the day, and it's not perfect.
At the end of the day, we've decided to maintain
the integrity of the ETS going forward and and do
things by exception.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
And this is one of those exceptions.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
But there it's the exception that makes it. What what's
to make something else not in the exception, like building
products or something whatever you dream up one morning becomes
an exception and we'll just write a check. I mean,
you've seen you're sitting a precedent here, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Yeah, well, you're you're right, And that's exactly why we
thought about it really hard, and drawing a distinction between
cement and other products as a tricky one. However, there
are no substitutes for cement, you know, it is just
fundamental to construction, to infrastructure, to building, to everything in
the economy. And frankly, if this plant fell over, you know,
the economy would potentially grind and.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Just correct me, I got a text from somebody else saying,
there's some other place that produces cement. You're absolutely one
hundred percent they are the only players that do this
sort of cement. Does that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It's my understanding. Yes, I'm no expert on it. There's
certainly a big part of the market.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Well, well, shouldn't you be an expert, seeing you just
wrote a check for sixty million dollars?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I'm I'm not an expert on this stuff, Mike,
but I can tell you we thought about it quite
deeply as a captain.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Was the dollars were the dollars? Part of it? If
it had been two hundred and eighty million dollars to
say a cement factory, would it have been different.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
We did a commercial deal, and so I don't want
to get into hypotheticals around you know.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Well, I'm just trying to work out is it the
uniqueness of the cement or is it the size of
the check? Because another word, sixty million you can live
with because it's not the end.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Of the world.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, sixty million dollars is a lot of money, not
so much about the well it is. It's not so
much about the quantum. It's about what you're securing for
domestic supply chain resilience and in the future. And you know,
I don't want to get into a hypotheticals or wise
and wherefores. But we've done a commercial deal based on
an open book process and we had some smart people
(07:39):
look at it, and ultimately we think we've acted in
the nationale.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
All.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
This is Tea way all over again, isn't it really.
I mean, they'll come back in a few more years
time say hey, remember that deal we needed again, and
you'll go no, no, no, absolutely not. You remember Bill
English thirty million dollars Tea Wham never again until.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It was I remember it well and I remember the
Labor government giving money to the steal with the arc furnace.
So these are the country trade offs that happen in government,
and I think most people you know, t y and
no one necessarily liked it. On the other hand, it
employs thousands of people for Cargol, and you know, I
think most people are pretty proud of the fact we
(08:14):
have aluminium.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Industry in Southland. So it's interesting to the country tradeoffs.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
By the way, while I've got you, because I'm having
so much fun. Have you seen the report today on
Tom Phillips? Have you got that yet or not?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
No, I get it. I think it's this morning actually.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So you literally received this morning. You wouldn't have the
slightest clue what's in it.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Haven't got the foggyest to get it this morning?
Speaker 1 (08:35):
What do you do with it?
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Then I'm going to read it and then there will
need to be some redactions made for public release because
you know, there's a variety of suppression orders in place,
and then will be me and a group of senior
ministers will be considering you know, essentially the Prime Minister
has got to put someone in charge of responding to it.
So you know, in relation to the Royal Commission into
(08:58):
State Based Abuse, you know it became Erica Stanford. There's
always a minister has to respond to it. So it'll
be able to the PM who it is, but it
will sort of depend on exactly what the report says,
so I don't want to get ahead of that.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
And in due course we will publicly release it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
There will be redactions I expect, but I'd expect to
release it probably mid August, so about a month away.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
All right, you get a lot on your play, haven't you. Yes,
nice to talk Chris Bishop, who's the Minister for rm
A reform cement and also that last question involved in
being the Attorney General.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
For more from the Mike Asking Breakfast. Listen live to
news talks.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Right, the Prime Minister. It was this time yesterday, in fact,
was previewing it. And that's why I serious you. If
you were listening to the interview, you head a strange
lock on his face, and I said, when are you
going to do this? And he suddenly goes rid. He's
not a good lie, the Prime Minister. He suddenly goes
red in the face and he starts going on this
couple of weeks, next couple of weeks, and I'm thinking.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Whatever, mate.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Anyway, the intervention was on the way between these deals
between locally wei and councils when it comes to planning
and making decisions. Ever since the RAMA reform was introduced,
as you well aware, various councils have been rushing to
these deals to try and circumvent the new rules. Well,
yesterday the handbrake got put on. Chris Bishop is the
RAMA Reform Minister, and he is with us, good morning,
good morning. Now you're still correct me if I'm wrong,
(00:39):
you're still letting some of these deals through. Correct.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
No, the Monte deals, anything that's already in existence or
as being signed right now, they won't exist. We're basically
scrapping the entire concept of them. So the ones that
have been done in the last few months, and there's
been a massive mad rush as you know, and you've
been talking about mic over the last few months gone,
they won't be transitioning into the new system.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So what role will maori be allowed to have post
your reform?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So the focus is on making sure it's at the
spatial planning level around the identification of sites of significance.
So I think most people would say, listen, when you're
doing a plan for a region, you want to pick
the sites where there's an old PA site for example,
or there's an old burial ground for example, or there's
particular sites of the significant significant to the local mana Fenua.
(01:30):
I think most kiwis would say, yep, you know what,
we should actually make sure that people know about where
those sites are so that you can't do particular types
of developments on those sites.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
So that's where the focus will be.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
We've really significantly narrowed the scope of the system around
to essentially around sites of significance and things like that.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Okay, so why were you in favor of these deals
broadly up until yesterday, Because it's not like they got
invented yesterday. They've been around for a while. It's just
there was a rush on what was accepted that.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, it's not that we were in favor of them,
it's just that there were only eight of them.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Yeah, you were putting up with them.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, it was a bit of a hangover. And look,
it was a bill. On was the bill.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
When we introduced that, you know, people said, oh, well,
there's only eight of them, they seem to be working. Okay,
just let them go through to the keeper within the
scope of the new system.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So we said, okay, well fair enough.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, well, you know, I mean we didn't get everything
right on first didn't get everything right at first first
time around.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
It's but what you did, what you did promises a
government is a coalition in every party was a member
to It was the demarification of this country and people
been given jobs based on race to make decisions that
weren't publicly elected. Is not what you promised you would do.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Well, that's not what's happening with the new planning system.
In fact, we've worked really hard. There's no Treaty Principal's
clause in the new planning system. We've deleted the idea
of the treaty principles. In the new planning system, there
is provisions to give effect to as I say, sites
of significance to ma for example, and local EWEI, and
I think most people would regard that as important. But
(03:04):
there is no treaty principal's clause in the bill. There's
a very narrowly scoped goal in the bill around Maurray
interests and around the giving effect to local EWE interests
and protection of Mari land, which again I think most
kiwis would say is pretty important after the alienation of
one hundred and fifty years. So we have really you know,
I've worked really hard alongside Simon Court and others to
(03:26):
get what I think is a good balance here and
make sure that we streamline the system, cut the red
tape and in some of the practices that I know
you've been talking about on the show over the last
few years.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Okay, Cement, are they playing you flinchers?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, I don't. I don't think they're playing us.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
And I tell you this, and you know, free frankness,
that we we go into this, you know, not not
wild about it, Frankly. I mean, no government wants to
put its hand in its pocket for you know, sixty
million bucks for a corporate However, on the other hand,
it is an exceptional case and we thought about it
quite deeply. It's our only domestic manufacturer of cement. It
(04:08):
is critical to the supply chain. The stuff they make,
the clinker is sort of intermediate part of the supply
chain is very important and ministers were just simply not
willing to see that.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Fall over. And that was the reality.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, but did they threaten you because they're not sure
they could drum up sixty million.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Well, we did an open book exercise looking at their financials.
They made it all freely and openly available. The challenges,
the emissions costs that are coming as a result of
the emissions trading scheme from twenty thirty onwards, which do
render that plant unviable or at least arguably uneconomic. And
(04:49):
so we've done a deal. We've made an investment, they've
agreed to keep it open. They've agreed to allied investments
of around one hundred and fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
On top of that, it will improve and will maintain.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Deployment in a relatively deprived part of New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
We don't, well, it's whether it's election year or not.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
To be honest, it's a kind of irrelevant because if
this has happened last year or next year, I think
I think the government would be well, this is what
happens in government, right, You get confronted with difficult decisions.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
And I don't pretend that this was an easy one.
It isn't.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
And you know, I didn't get into politics to give
money to corporates, but sometimes you know you've got to
You've got to do the do the right thing of
a national interest.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
That's what makes us such an interesting story. Why don't
you just change the etes? Why are we mucking around
with CEMENTA? I mean, if it's going to mean why
why are we why are we taxing ourselves into joblessness?
What's the point of that?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Well, there are challenges with the ETS settings, you're right,
But at the end of the day, and it's not perfect.
At the end of the day, we've decided to maintain
the integrity of the ETS going forward and and do
things by exception.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
And this is one of those exceptions.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
But there it's the exception that makes it. What what's
to make something else not in the exception, like building
products or something whatever you dream up one morning becomes
an exception and we'll just write a check. I mean,
you've seen you're sitting a precedent here, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Yeah, well, you're you're right, And that's exactly why we
thought about it really hard, and drawing a distinction between
cement and other products as a tricky one. However, there
are no substitutes for cement, you know, it is just
fundamental to construction, to infrastructure, to building, to everything in
the economy. And frankly, if this plant fell over, you know,
the economy would potentially grind and.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Just correct me, I got a text from somebody else saying,
there's some other place that produces cement. You're absolutely one
hundred percent they are the only players that do this
sort of cement. Does that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It's my understanding. Yes, I'm no expert on it. There's
certainly a big part of the market.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Well, well, shouldn't you be an expert, seeing you just
wrote a check for sixty million dollars?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I'm I'm not an expert on this stuff, Mike,
but I can tell you we thought about it quite
deeply as a captain.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Was the dollars were the dollars? Part of it? If
it had been two hundred and eighty million dollars to
say a cement factory, would it have been different.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
We did a commercial deal, and so I don't want
to get into hypotheticals around you know.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Well, I'm just trying to work out is it the
uniqueness of the cement or is it the size of
the check? Because another word, sixty million you can live
with because it's not the end.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Of the world.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, sixty million dollars is a lot of money, not
so much about the well it is. It's not so
much about the quantum. It's about what you're securing for
domestic supply chain resilience and in the future. And you know,
I don't want to get into a hypotheticals or wise
and wherefores. But we've done a commercial deal based on
an open book process and we had some smart people
(07:39):
look at it, and ultimately we think we've acted in
the nationale.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
All.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
This is Tea way all over again, isn't it really.
I mean, they'll come back in a few more years
time say hey, remember that deal we needed again, and
you'll go no, no, no, absolutely not. You remember Bill
English thirty million dollars Tea Wham never again until.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It was I remember it well and I remember the
Labor government giving money to the steal with the arc furnace.
So these are the country trade offs that happen in government,
and I think most people you know, t y and
no one necessarily liked it. On the other hand, it
employs thousands of people for Cargol, and you know, I
think most people are pretty proud of the fact we
(08:14):
have aluminium.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Industry in Southland. So it's interesting to the country tradeoffs.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
By the way, while I've got you, because I'm having
so much fun. Have you seen the report today on
Tom Phillips? Have you got that yet or not?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
No, I get it. I think it's this morning actually.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So you literally received this morning. You wouldn't have the
slightest clue what's in it.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Haven't got the foggyest to get it this morning?
Speaker 1 (08:35):
What do you do with it?
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Then I'm going to read it and then there will
need to be some redactions made for public release because
you know, there's a variety of suppression orders in place,
and then will be me and a group of senior
ministers will be considering you know, essentially the Prime Minister
has got to put someone in charge of responding to it.
So you know, in relation to the Royal Commission into
(08:58):
State Based Abuse, you know it became Erica Stanford. There's
always a minister has to respond to it. So it'll
be able to the PM who it is, but it
will sort of depend on exactly what the report says,
so I don't want to get ahead of that.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
And in due course we will publicly release it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
There will be redactions I expect, but I'd expect to
release it probably mid August, so about a month away.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
All right, you get a lot on your play, haven't you. Yes,
nice to talk Chris Bishop, who's the Minister for rm
A reform cement and also that last question involved in
being the Attorney General.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
For more from the Mike Asking Breakfast. Listen live to
news talks.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com