Minister Chris Bishop delivered an unprecedented message to local government leaders last month. At the LGNZ conference, he declared that New Zealanders question councils’ “licence to lead.” But his speech went further than typical government criticism of local authorities.

For the first time since I have worked in this area in government, a senior minister turned the spotlight on central government itself. Bishop acknowledged Wellington’s role in creating New Zealand’s planning dysfunction. “Central government has overseen the broken planning and infrastructure systems you've been operating within for 30 years,” he told delegates. “We have been a bad partner with you for a long time.”

This represents a watershed moment in New Zealand governance. The government finally understands it is part of the problem.

Media coverage missed the significance entirely. Stuff proclaimed, “the mood is tense because central government is about to tell local government how to do its job.” They failed to recognise Wellington was acknowledging its own responsibility for system failure.

For decades, the government treated resource management gridlock as a problem ‘out there.’ Council planners found creative ways to avoid complying with central government direction. Wellington invented new processes to make failing systems work or bypass them. Yet central government remained blind to its own role in perpetuating dysfunction.

This is why Bishop’s speech was such a breakthrough. He recognised that both levels of government are part of the problem. His speech commanded councils to halt normal planning processes except for the already underway adaptation work. He put every planning team on notice that the old playbook is over.

This marks genuine leadership accountability. Until leaders acknowledge their role in creating gridlock, solutions remain elusive. Previous RMA reform efforts failed because they treated planning dysfunction as an external problem requiring no government self-reflection.

The government’s Going for Housing Growth discussion document reveals the challenge ahead. While Bishop called for competitive land markets and a new planning paradigm, the document remains steeped in status quo thinking.

Bishop also announced immediate action. The government will stop unnecessary plan changes under the RMA to prevent councils from wasting resources on work incompatible with the coming system. A new regulation-making power will allow ministers to remove district plan provisions that block economic growth.

These measures signal government’s commitment to change. But the real test lies deeper. Can central government officials examine their role in perpetuating dysfunction? Can they embrace genuine institutional reform beyond technical fixes?

Bishop’s speech matters because it models the accountability required for successful reform. Without self-reflection from the institutions that designed our failing system, New Zealand will remain stuck with planning gridlock disguised as incremental improvement.