March 25, 2025 • 6 mins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says compromises will need to be made in reforming the Resource Management Act.
The Government's replacing the Act with a new planning framework, including rules around land development and environment protections.
It's seeking cross-party support.
Hipkins told Mike Hosking the country's administration can't keep putting infrastructure projects on hold.
He says that if there are projects underway, even if they’re not the administration’s first choice, they’ll keep doing them.
Labour also wants clarity around the Treaty of Waitangi's role in the reform.
Cabinet's decided on ruling out incorporating a Treaty clause in the legislation, despite the Expert Advisory Group recommending the current clause be carried over.
Hipkins told Mike Hosking they want to make sure Treaty settlements are respected.
He says saying you want to respect the Treaty but then saying you don't want to put it into law is contradictory.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Government's having a crack at cross party support for their
RMA reform. They're inviting the Labor Party in the Greens
to the table to try and build sort of consensus
around these new laws. So what chance of this happening?
Labor Party leader Crusipkins with us morning.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Good morning, Mike. I'm glad you found my number again.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
And no, we never lost your number, Chris, just didn't
want to ring it. You know how it does now?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So is the brutal business, Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It's a tough business, Chris. On a scale of one
to ten when we talk about this cooperation business, on
a scale of one to ten ten, you can't wait
to get into bed with these people and sort out
the RMA one. You hate them and you're never going
to touch them with a barge pole. Where are you at?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh? I think we're keen to try and achieve some
certainty for New Zealanders. So if we can work with them,
find a way forward that involves a bit of compromise
and that will actually give some certainty to RIMA reform,
then we're very keen to talk to them.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think one of the things that we've heard a
lot in the last year or so from New Zealanders
is you know, the ping pong where each government comes
in and just changes everything the last government did is
actually getting a bit dizzy. And for people, compromise will
be required on both sides. If we're going to get
something that's a bit more stable and that avoids that,
and if we can try and achieve that over the
next year and a half or so, then we're open
(01:08):
to that conversation.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Now. I was very pleased to hear you say that
the other day, and I thought, well, maybe we're onto something.
But then I asked Ginny Anderson on the program last
week about your charter schools and she botched that completely.
And you're still canceling charter schools. But so on one
hand you're saying we want to cooperate. On another hand,
we're not canceling stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And then you are, well, there are I mean, you're
never going to get complete unanimity in politics, So there
are going to be areas where there's difference, but an
areas like infrastructure and areas like RIMA reform where we've
got really long lead times, very long kind of tails
to some of these things and very significant effects with
a short term chop and change cycle. We do want
(01:47):
to try and provide a bit more certainty. So if
you take things like infrastructure, for example, one government coming
in and saying, oh suh, I don't like the roading
projects that the last government have signed up to, so
we're going to put all them on hold, and we're
going to come up with our own list of roading projects.
What happens in the meantime is all the businesses who
would build those roading projects suddenly go, what do we
do with all the workers who we've got leaning on shovels?
(02:07):
And you know, I just think that's got to stop.
So what I said was in areas like roading, for example,
if there are projects underway, even if they might not
have been our first choice, we'll keep doing them. Now
the long term pipeline might change, so further down the track,
five years down the track, you might find that the
priorities have changed and we're building different roads. But we
won't grind everything to a hold Holt In the meantime.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
What about your comment about the treaty. So the treaty's
not in it? Do you is that like put it
in or else we're out.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It's certainly something we want to talk to them about. So,
I mean, Chris Bishop made some soothing comments yesterday about
wanting to respect, you know, Marty rights under the treaty,
wanting to make sure that treaty settlements were upheld and
all of that. We need to kind of see what
that looks like because saying that you want to do
that but then saying you don't want to put it
in the law are kind of contradictory thing. So we
need to understand exactly what the government are proposing there.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
I don't want to make it too political, but one
of the examples that's been tossed around the last couple
of days the Island Singapore thing, where they've got all
the rules on basically one page, when David Parker wanted
to reform it and came up with nine hundred plus pages.
Was that a bridge too far?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I mean, I think you can't judge the quality of
legislation in an area like this by the length of it,
because in some cases, longer legislation that gives more clarity
is better than shorter legislation, which then means you get
a whole lot of regulations which can chop and change
more so I don't think that we should set a
page limit to it, because sometimes you know, a longer
legislation actually is clearer than shorter legislation. So if you
(03:32):
did get it down to a page, for example, Mike,
and it was a page of principles, that'd be quite
subjective potentially, and then the courts end up having more
sway in it rather than Parliament. So you know, I
think what we want to try and do is find
something that gives New Zealanders some certainty so that they
can say, Okay, these are the rules, we know what
they're going to be, they're locked in and we can
move forward. And I think that that actual but that
(03:54):
does put an onus on National in particular, to say, yet,
we'll come to the table and we'll try and find
a way forward that Labor and National can both live with.
And it might not be first preference for either of us,
but we'll find a way forward. What Chris Bishop's leader
effectively said yesterday was that New Zealand first and ACTI
continue to have a veto on any decisions. Now I
think he is a fed up of that. So I'm
(04:15):
saying to them, look, if Labor and National can get
around the table, find a way forward that gives you
your majority in parliament, but it also means it's an
enduring majority if the government changes. I think New Zealanders
would be quite keen on that.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Would you concede? Though? The couple of examples I've got
exercised about it, like was this k road building by
Farrenhey that was rejected for reasons that having read it,
I can't even begin to understand. And the wind farm
in Southland under your fast track rule, the wind farm
wasn't allowed, so renewable fast tracks still can't go ahead.
I mean, you can't defend that stuff, can you.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
No? I mean I was pretty frustrated by both of
those decisions, to be frank, you know, and you know
the fast track was designed to try and speed up
exactly that kind of project and those kind of projects.
When we need more renewable energy in New Zealand and
we need a resource management process that allows us to
get there. I think if you take the case of
the wind farm for example, it kind of highlights where
(05:07):
we need a bit of a almost like an attitude
shift towards this stuff from saying no, you can't do
these things for these reasons to saying, look, these are
the concerns that we've got, and here's how you can
mitigate those concerns so that you can go ahead and
do it now. That's the kind of I think, sort
of attitude shift that we need around resource management stuff.
It's not that there shouldn't be environmental protections, there should be.
(05:29):
It's not that there shouldn't be constraints. There should be,
but the way we approach them has to be. Wind
farms are good. We won't need them to happen in
order for them to happen in this area. These are
the things you need to do to mitigate the risks now.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Are nice to catch up with the cross Sipkins Labor
Party leader immediate feedback, Mike, I wouldn't trust chippy with
a barge pole too much baggage. Sure, that's my ongoing
This why I can't wait for the election to year
next year because it'll be a fascinating thing. And that's
why traditionally governments get two terms in this country, especially
ones that got heaved out of power for very obvious
and overt reasons around the economy. Is that you haven't
(06:01):
forgotten and the same people are there so unless I mean,
if they'd materially changed that, they'd gone, look those policies
for another time, another day, and we're different now, or
they jettison a whole lot of people out and put
a whole lot of new people, and then you have
a different conversation. But the same people who shafted the
economy are going to be presenting themselves to you next
(06:21):
year and going, hey, remember us, Mike, Shorter legislations always better.
Hipkin's not convincing. All Chippy is doing is appeasing potential
swing voters. This rat will say anything to get in power.
Mike Chippy needs the Marry Party to get back into
government and they won't agree weasel words. So didn't go
too well for them.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Government's having a crack at cross party support for their
RMA reform. They're inviting the Labor Party in the Greens
to the table to try and build sort of consensus
around these new laws. So what chance of this happening?
Labor Party leader Crusipkins with us morning.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Good morning, Mike. I'm glad you found my number again.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
And no, we never lost your number, Chris, just didn't
want to ring it. You know how it does now?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So is the brutal business, Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It's a tough business, Chris. On a scale of one
to ten when we talk about this cooperation business, on
a scale of one to ten ten, you can't wait
to get into bed with these people and sort out
the RMA one. You hate them and you're never going
to touch them with a barge pole. Where are you at?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh? I think we're keen to try and achieve some
certainty for New Zealanders. So if we can work with them,
find a way forward that involves a bit of compromise
and that will actually give some certainty to RIMA reform,
then we're very keen to talk to them.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think one of the things that we've heard a
lot in the last year or so from New Zealanders
is you know, the ping pong where each government comes
in and just changes everything the last government did is
actually getting a bit dizzy. And for people, compromise will
be required on both sides. If we're going to get
something that's a bit more stable and that avoids that,
and if we can try and achieve that over the
next year and a half or so, then we're open
(01:08):
to that conversation.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Now. I was very pleased to hear you say that
the other day, and I thought, well, maybe we're onto something.
But then I asked Ginny Anderson on the program last
week about your charter schools and she botched that completely.
And you're still canceling charter schools. But so on one
hand you're saying we want to cooperate. On another hand,
we're not canceling stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And then you are, well, there are I mean, you're
never going to get complete unanimity in politics, So there
are going to be areas where there's difference, but an
areas like infrastructure and areas like RIMA reform where we've
got really long lead times, very long kind of tails
to some of these things and very significant effects with
a short term chop and change cycle. We do want
(01:47):
to try and provide a bit more certainty. So if
you take things like infrastructure, for example, one government coming
in and saying, oh suh, I don't like the roading
projects that the last government have signed up to, so
we're going to put all them on hold, and we're
going to come up with our own list of roading projects.
What happens in the meantime is all the businesses who
would build those roading projects suddenly go, what do we
do with all the workers who we've got leaning on shovels?
(02:07):
And you know, I just think that's got to stop.
So what I said was in areas like roading, for example,
if there are projects underway, even if they might not
have been our first choice, we'll keep doing them. Now
the long term pipeline might change, so further down the track,
five years down the track, you might find that the
priorities have changed and we're building different roads. But we
won't grind everything to a hold Holt In the meantime.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
What about your comment about the treaty. So the treaty's
not in it? Do you is that like put it
in or else we're out.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It's certainly something we want to talk to them about. So,
I mean, Chris Bishop made some soothing comments yesterday about
wanting to respect, you know, Marty rights under the treaty,
wanting to make sure that treaty settlements were upheld and
all of that. We need to kind of see what
that looks like because saying that you want to do
that but then saying you don't want to put it
in the law are kind of contradictory thing. So we
need to understand exactly what the government are proposing there.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
I don't want to make it too political, but one
of the examples that's been tossed around the last couple
of days the Island Singapore thing, where they've got all
the rules on basically one page, when David Parker wanted
to reform it and came up with nine hundred plus pages.
Was that a bridge too far?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I mean, I think you can't judge the quality of
legislation in an area like this by the length of it,
because in some cases, longer legislation that gives more clarity
is better than shorter legislation, which then means you get
a whole lot of regulations which can chop and change
more so I don't think that we should set a
page limit to it, because sometimes you know, a longer
legislation actually is clearer than shorter legislation. So if you
(03:32):
did get it down to a page, for example, Mike,
and it was a page of principles, that'd be quite
subjective potentially, and then the courts end up having more
sway in it rather than Parliament. So you know, I
think what we want to try and do is find
something that gives New Zealanders some certainty so that they
can say, Okay, these are the rules, we know what
they're going to be, they're locked in and we can
move forward. And I think that that actual but that
(03:54):
does put an onus on National in particular, to say, yet,
we'll come to the table and we'll try and find
a way forward that Labor and National can both live with.
And it might not be first preference for either of us,
but we'll find a way forward. What Chris Bishop's leader
effectively said yesterday was that New Zealand first and ACTI
continue to have a veto on any decisions. Now I
think he is a fed up of that. So I'm
(04:15):
saying to them, look, if Labor and National can get
around the table, find a way forward that gives you
your majority in parliament, but it also means it's an
enduring majority if the government changes. I think New Zealanders
would be quite keen on that.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Would you concede? Though? The couple of examples I've got
exercised about it, like was this k road building by
Farrenhey that was rejected for reasons that having read it,
I can't even begin to understand. And the wind farm
in Southland under your fast track rule, the wind farm
wasn't allowed, so renewable fast tracks still can't go ahead.
I mean, you can't defend that stuff, can you.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
No? I mean I was pretty frustrated by both of
those decisions, to be frank, you know, and you know
the fast track was designed to try and speed up
exactly that kind of project and those kind of projects.
When we need more renewable energy in New Zealand and
we need a resource management process that allows us to
get there. I think if you take the case of
the wind farm for example, it kind of highlights where
(05:07):
we need a bit of a almost like an attitude
shift towards this stuff from saying no, you can't do
these things for these reasons to saying, look, these are
the concerns that we've got, and here's how you can
mitigate those concerns so that you can go ahead and
do it now. That's the kind of I think, sort
of attitude shift that we need around resource management stuff.
It's not that there shouldn't be environmental protections, there should be.
(05:29):
It's not that there shouldn't be constraints. There should be,
but the way we approach them has to be. Wind
farms are good. We won't need them to happen in
order for them to happen in this area. These are
the things you need to do to mitigate the risks now.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Are nice to catch up with the cross Sipkins Labor
Party leader immediate feedback, Mike, I wouldn't trust chippy with
a barge pole too much baggage. Sure, that's my ongoing
This why I can't wait for the election to year
next year because it'll be a fascinating thing. And that's
why traditionally governments get two terms in this country, especially
ones that got heaved out of power for very obvious
and overt reasons around the economy. Is that you haven't
(06:01):
forgotten and the same people are there so unless I mean,
if they'd materially changed that, they'd gone, look those policies
for another time, another day, and we're different now, or
they jettison a whole lot of people out and put
a whole lot of new people, and then you have
a different conversation. But the same people who shafted the
economy are going to be presenting themselves to you next
(06:21):
year and going, hey, remember us, Mike, Shorter legislations always better.
Hipkin's not convincing. All Chippy is doing is appeasing potential
swing voters. This rat will say anything to get in power.
Mike Chippy needs the Marry Party to get back into
government and they won't agree weasel words. So didn't go
too well for them.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.