Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (17) – Part 1
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (17) – Part 1


they’ve assembled a reform agenda that will be incredibly useful for the next labour-led government this year I call Catherine Delahunty cured uh-uh kotake tornami he knew he caught in Nepal thank you very much mr. chair for the opportunity to take a call on the Rema resource legt legislation amendment bill part 1 takes me back so for the young and innocent who weren’t born pre-1990 I and others were part of the original resource management law reform consultation process and it’s such a different story to what we see today so during that process was not only the processes of Parliament but there was also a genuine and deep conversation across this country about what really needs to happen how are we going to create the most effect of our resource management legislation the world’s ever seen and you know as a much younger person it was very interesting that the ministry for the environment invited us to come to Wellington with our queer from naughty Finola from an ayah and from the anti unashamed anti-mining organization which was currently blocking roads at the time and actually thought that those of us who were deeply concerned enough about the environment prepared to stand our ground and nonviolent direct action also might have a view on better law can anyone imagine that happening now there’s no way now that the conversation is being held with the people who are the most passionate not only about law but about standing their ground on communities and what’s disturbing about part one is this a so far from the original spirit of the RMA it’s about limiting and restricting citizen rights and it’s extraordinary because our communities rely heavily on the ability to participate in this stuff and they already struggle with the increasing limitation that’s been imposed through the many amendments the RMA since the 1990s and now it’s going to get worse so what the government has done a shoehorned into part one alongside the agenda which is supposedly about housing a whole lot of other things it’s been a great opportunity to further restrict the rights of people to participate in planning issues and in consenting processes and for those of us for example who are working at the moment on water are incredibly important in contested space this law is not only confusing it’s actually stripping us of the opportunities we need for some very very major issues and very specific issues and I do have some questions for the minister about the contents of the National Planning standards and how earth they relate to the national policy statements and how they if they relate to the Clean Water plan that’s just been released and how on earth all of that is supposed to fit together into a coherent statement which regional councils and communities could tongue as Athena could possibly interpret the more words does not mean the better protection of the environment if the underlying agenda is restricting the right of people to participate and the concept of fast-tracking and deeply embedded in part one of this bill is the idea of fast-tracking both planning and consenting processes that actually prevent people from having a sale on critical matters so I’m just going to talk about water for example this is not theoretical all around the more to this is a live issue for example for the rule Tony far down so there’s not only the court cases associated with the land swap but also the incredible court cases that have gone on to talk about the nitrate issues in those in the talkie-talkie River and if the rights of the National Environment groups amongst others are restricted as they could be under the legislation as not being directly affected depending on how that chosen to be defined people cannot participate in their responsibilities as citizens for a major issue like we were Tony fun then there are issues like the Tarawera River where I can a river has a company as a consent for another 20 years to pollute a river and the only thing that stands between that being an ongoing situation is the activity of citizens who are trying to get review clauses into the consent and then next time in the 2030s because the company still wants to use the river as a drain then they’ve got no plan to get out that river how will the citizens participate if they are not directly affected pattinson myself and my partner who spent 30 years working on that river 30 years of his life and I came on a bit more lately but we participate in all the processes as much as we can we’re not going to be seen as affected parties because we don’t live next to the pulp mills we don’t live links to the river mr. chair go from the home mr. chair thank you very much another example why call it pupu springs where the water allocation issues upstream of that way taboo the important issues there is the ability of communities to participate in deciding how that spring is going to be protected and if you go through the the clauses around the restriction of powers and that are being imposed through part one you can see that the ability of those people if they are not the farmers affected and if they are not living next to the springs how much more difficult is going to be mount aspiring national park the the the water bottling day barkal from taking the pristine most pristine water from tuning fork creek and pumping it through jackson’s bay into a ship already already the RMA has been restricted to the point where very few parties locally knew this was going on and very few could participate but the point mr. chair is that the store will make that worse it will restrict participation and the planning processes that create the frameworks for participation and then in the actual ability if those planning processes fail for communities fail the environment to actually participate in the consenting processes the bill as I minority report says gives Minister sweeping powers to go against the communities will and impose his decisions on our cities towns and countryside and that water is just one example they remember many others we’ve just seen in the and the news than the last day that the one plan which was a good piece of planning which was undermined by implementation could be taken to court by national environment groups will that still be the case if the restrictions for participation are narrowed down these are really important questions because the expertise that has been created through hard work and precedent and practice by national groups if that’s restricted from participating in these local apparently just local decision such only affected parties and narrowly defined criteria can participate in we have serious problems we do not support the idea of fast tracking of restricting participation on any of these issues if it takes a bit longer mr. chair let’s get it right we only have one planet we only have one country but another node taitung it’s a toy to tofino ah there is actually no future without the environment and this bill undermines the co popper of the RMA which was designed originally as I was saying earlier to create the opportunity for the environment to have a really strong voice we lost section 5 part 2 we did not want to see at the time in the 1990s we do not want to see the myth of balance because there is no balance if you destroy the environment and that’s our major concern with this bill then it comes to the biggest environmental issue of our entire planet eptin art may I say right across the world right now with horrific destabilized weather conditions including events in our own country that must make people question what our part in this is and what we can do rather than just throw our hands up say it’s the wither it’s the climate but we cannot discuss it in the RMA if this bill goes through it continues to exclude the most important issue that everyone in this house acknowledges will most of them do hopefully everyone by now I haven’t really don’t know tally lately believes is real even if they’re not prepared to act on it and so we’re supporting new journey sages sop 283 because all of these issues climate water as well as the housing debate in the urban debate and the article two issues which do need to be strengthened and in the right way all of those issues are important but if we are going to shut out the voices of people including those of us who helped to write the original legislation because the government of the day was welcoming and open to the public voice what have we done in this Parliament and we’re no longer going to be at the forefront of resource management legislation in the world we’re now going to be right back down at the bottom of the heap where anything goes so long as there’s money in it and so long as development can go ahead we can and we can have all these labels and all of these complicated resurrected such as there is but basically it’s a fast track to nowhere and the Green Party cannot support that killed a touch of couture grant Robertson oh I’m sure them fit appropriately come after me because I’ve got some questions for them

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *