Bishop spends Housing money on Bridge for his electorate is pork barrel politics at their most porkiest

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
1
44
Former Tobacco Lobbyist and Pork Barrel devotee, Chris Bishop
Jesus wept, taking money from public housing for a bridge in your own electorate? Does it get more craven and vial; than this?
The Case Study: Chris Bishop’s $27m electorate bridge
Today’s story lays out the facts clearly. Chris Bishop, in his dual roles as Minister of Housing and Minister of Transport, “used housing money earmarked for a stormwater project to fund a walking and cycling bridge in his electorate”.
This was $27 million from the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF), originally set up under the previous government. That fund was “specifically intended for use in supporting the development of homes.” And that $27 million was part of a $99 million agreement for a critical “stormwater infrastructure” upgrade in Lower Hutt, a project with one specific goal: to “enable 3500 new homes to be built”.
So, where did this money, meant to unlock 3,500 new homes in the middle of a housing crisis, go?
It was redirected to fund the “City Link” bridge, a pet project in Bishop’s own Hutt South electorate, one that he “had promised to fund” during his election campaign.
The cynicism here is layered and deep. This funding black hole for the bridge only existed because the Government’s 2024 transport policy, which Bishop himself as Transport Minister championed, had “slashed any funding for non-car infrastructure”.

 

…even for National, this is a pork barrel cronyism that is jaw dropping in its audacity and cynicism.

As most Kiwis are weighed down by the cost of living crisis, this Government are ramming through controversial decisions that are self interested and spiteful.

Even Right Wing ‘all-tribe-no-village’ Hate Trolls  will find defending this decision a challenge.

In 1943, NZs Ambassador to America, Sir George Laking, reflected on the surprising ability of the NZ Government to pass authoritarian powers against the citizens of NZ with little to no resistance from Kiwis by saying, “Much that was accomplished in those early years was possible only because of the absence of any detailed or sustained public interest in the issues”.

- Sponsor Promotion -

We have become experts in a hyper laid back culture of turning a blind eye.

Remember – there is no depression in NZ, or corruption and we don’t know how lucky we are.

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

1 COMMENT

  1. Officials warned their minister in no uncertain terms:

    The “potential savings” in the stormwater project were “unclear,” as was the final cost of the bridge.

    They warned that it was not “prudent” to proceed.

    Crucially, HUD “did not believe that the bridge directly enabled housing as the stormwater infrastructure would.”

    And most damningly, officials flagged the “reputation or precedent risk”. This is the polite, bureaucratic language for “Minister, this looks corrupt and sets a terrible example”.

    The deal was also rammed through so quickly in March that “Treasury did not have time to take an official view”. This is a classic tactic to avoid the fiscal watchdog.

    Bishop, of course, ignored them all, telling The Post he saw it as a “pragmatic response”. This “pragmatism,” echoed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, is a weaponised word. The truly pragmatic advice was from HUD: don’t raid a critical housing project for a non-housing one with unclear costs. Bishop’s “pragmatism” was purely political. It was pragmatic for him to deliver a visible project to his own voters.

    https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2025/11/th-e-pork-barrell-politics-of-chris.html

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here