“Will no one rid me of this turbulent bishop?" cried King Henry the Second, yelling to the ceiling in frustration at the antics of the archbishop of Canterbury, the soon-to-be-murdered Thomas Becket. It is, if you forgive the literary fudge alert readers will have noticed, a sentiment our Prime Minister may be feeling as his premiership is undermined by the persistent stories that the current Hutt South MP has been counting the numbers. It is also a lesson in being clear with your retinue on your intentions.
I will not speculate as to the accuracy of these rumours other than to say that what I am reading publicly is consistent with what I am hearing privately, which, if the former is fuelling the latter, proves nothing.
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
Either way, Chris Bishop has emerged as the main pretender to a shaky crown. How shall we assess his performance?
Bishop’s primary responsibility, other than completing Steven Joyce’s highway from Warkworth to Whangarei, is reforming the RMA. Roads can be slow going, so I will withhold judgement, but legislation is something completely within the minister’s control. In fact, given how central the reform of the Resource Management Act has been to this government, it defies comprehension that National didn't arrive with a draft ready to go.
Chris Bishop says National needs to move on together: Stuff
No matter. In the best traditions of the previous government, a working group was established one year after Bishop had assumed his ministerial robes. Once established, this expert advisory group moved with admirable speed and, in February 2025, delivered its report with 21 recommendations, and Cabinet approved this approach the following month.
So far, too slow, but at least we are heading in the right direction. Sadly here is where the minister for RMA reform took his eye off his current responsibility and began looking at assuming even greater ones he could neglect. The Ministry for the Environment should never have been given the responsibility for drafting. They should not be put in charge of a fish tank; the poor creatures would die over the weekend.
The excellent folk at the NZ Initiative have done an analysis of the two proposed laws: the Natural Environment and the Planning Bills. Nick Clark, the researcher, concluded, "...in the translation from principles to legislative text, something has gone wrong. Key elements have been weakened, complexity has crept back in, and an extraordinary amount of the systems' substance has been deferred to secondary instruments that do not yet exist.”
The Wellington bureaucratic elite see themselves as a quasi-religious order preserving the integrity of Aotearoa against the wishes of the electorate and those they elect. When they were given the opportunity to draft these bills, they understood the assignment.
They presented to their minister one thing dressed up as another, and he began defending the ministry's product. The technical term for a minister who assumes the talking points of his ministry is ‘captured’.
Notably, it was one his cabinet colleagues, Erica Stanford, who did not make it. Stanford assumed that the Ministry of Education could not be trusted and established a parallel advisory panel to drive through changes to the curriculum, and, consequently, is well advanced on her assignments, while Minister Bishop can only complain that the Ministry for the Environment ate his homework.
The desire to place property rights at the heart of the legislation has been superseded by placing mana whenua into their customary central role in managing the land. In detailing how each local authority should write their local spatial plans, the proposed bill states the following:
“… each local authority will ensure that its obligations or agreements under iwi participation legislation or agreements under that legislation, existing joint management agreements, or existing or initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe are upheld during the process."
If passed, these bills will not be the final word. That will be left to ‘secondary legislation’, or regulation; binding rules made by the minister of the day that determine how the law is to be applied. The proposal is for parliament to delegate its authority to the executive with minimal oversight. This time next year, Minister Swarbrick could use this secondary legislation to mandate her own vision into reality.
Did we vote for that?
I understand that the minister now appreciates the extent of the deception and the perfidy of the bureaucratic class that has magnificently undermined his agenda. This should have been self-evident thirty months ago, but we all fall on the road to Damascus at different waypoints.
King Henry ruled for 18 (mostly) glorious years after the scandalous murder of his archbishop. The sovereign blamed errant knights for the misdeed, undertook a very public act of penance and, going forward, was careful to be clear in his instructions to civil servants.
It would be a remarkable recovery if this legislation were salvaged in the time available, but if Messrs Bishop and Luxon can focus on the task that we elected them to achieve and not on each other, they may find the electorate may grant them a further three years.......The full article is published HERE
Bishop’s primary responsibility, other than completing Steven Joyce’s highway from Warkworth to Whangarei, is reforming the RMA. Roads can be slow going, so I will withhold judgement, but legislation is something completely within the minister’s control. In fact, given how central the reform of the Resource Management Act has been to this government, it defies comprehension that National didn't arrive with a draft ready to go.
Chris Bishop says National needs to move on together: Stuff
No matter. In the best traditions of the previous government, a working group was established one year after Bishop had assumed his ministerial robes. Once established, this expert advisory group moved with admirable speed and, in February 2025, delivered its report with 21 recommendations, and Cabinet approved this approach the following month.
So far, too slow, but at least we are heading in the right direction. Sadly here is where the minister for RMA reform took his eye off his current responsibility and began looking at assuming even greater ones he could neglect. The Ministry for the Environment should never have been given the responsibility for drafting. They should not be put in charge of a fish tank; the poor creatures would die over the weekend.
The excellent folk at the NZ Initiative have done an analysis of the two proposed laws: the Natural Environment and the Planning Bills. Nick Clark, the researcher, concluded, "...in the translation from principles to legislative text, something has gone wrong. Key elements have been weakened, complexity has crept back in, and an extraordinary amount of the systems' substance has been deferred to secondary instruments that do not yet exist.”
The Wellington bureaucratic elite see themselves as a quasi-religious order preserving the integrity of Aotearoa against the wishes of the electorate and those they elect. When they were given the opportunity to draft these bills, they understood the assignment.
They presented to their minister one thing dressed up as another, and he began defending the ministry's product. The technical term for a minister who assumes the talking points of his ministry is ‘captured’.
Notably, it was one his cabinet colleagues, Erica Stanford, who did not make it. Stanford assumed that the Ministry of Education could not be trusted and established a parallel advisory panel to drive through changes to the curriculum, and, consequently, is well advanced on her assignments, while Minister Bishop can only complain that the Ministry for the Environment ate his homework.
The desire to place property rights at the heart of the legislation has been superseded by placing mana whenua into their customary central role in managing the land. In detailing how each local authority should write their local spatial plans, the proposed bill states the following:
“… each local authority will ensure that its obligations or agreements under iwi participation legislation or agreements under that legislation, existing joint management agreements, or existing or initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe are upheld during the process."
If passed, these bills will not be the final word. That will be left to ‘secondary legislation’, or regulation; binding rules made by the minister of the day that determine how the law is to be applied. The proposal is for parliament to delegate its authority to the executive with minimal oversight. This time next year, Minister Swarbrick could use this secondary legislation to mandate her own vision into reality.
Did we vote for that?
I understand that the minister now appreciates the extent of the deception and the perfidy of the bureaucratic class that has magnificently undermined his agenda. This should have been self-evident thirty months ago, but we all fall on the road to Damascus at different waypoints.
King Henry ruled for 18 (mostly) glorious years after the scandalous murder of his archbishop. The sovereign blamed errant knights for the misdeed, undertook a very public act of penance and, going forward, was careful to be clear in his instructions to civil servants.
It would be a remarkable recovery if this legislation were salvaged in the time available, but if Messrs Bishop and Luxon can focus on the task that we elected them to achieve and not on each other, they may find the electorate may grant them a further three years.......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
3 comments:
Of course, one may assume that Bishop is just another numpty who is easily led by the nose. But what if we completely misjudge his motives here? Perhaps he is secretly delighted with the mess his Ministry has made?
Damien. I would contend that amid the current National Party Caucus, there is "No" Charles II, that could ever find "some knights in shining armour". let alone a NZ version of Canterbury Cathedral (ours is still to be or in the throes of being rebuilt) that could carry our any 'suggestion' by Chris Bishop of removing the Pope, er sorry the PM.
They are to "entrenched" in doing nothing - a could example Paul Goldsmith (BSA saga) along with gaining a weekly pay packet to suit their "Wellington Lifestyles".
Also Damien, if you read any printed article on this Website or looked at posted NZ videos on You Tube re the NZ Govt, then read the posted comments, you would see just how "vilified" the PM has become and if there was a potential political party that stood out, worth voting for, then you would see a "large number of knights in shining armour" descend on the polling booths and "carry out their version of Charles II" upon National and possibly NZ First - WP is not the "best bloke in town", he wears an historical "tea towel" from his association with Labour and Jacinda Ardern, not forgotten nor forgiven by the NZ Public.
Charles II? Do you mean Henry II?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.