Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (7) – Part 1
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (7) – Part 1


to northland or to new zealand is the practical changes that are required to the Resource Management Act so we can have more houses so we can have more jobs so we can have less bureaucracy and then we can have a stronger economy I’m going to cook I’m calling I’m calling using sage so cheer thank you very much mr. chair government members ad falling them falling over themselves to take calls on this bill they seem to be leaving it to the minister to defend this shambles of a piece of legislation and they’re too scared mr. hondros went to Peter says I agree mr. chair we have in this bill it’s been a shambolic process it’s been pushed through select committee negotiations have occurred with the Maori Party completely outside the select committee process there hasn’t been substantive debate within the Select Committee we are not going to see a bill that has agreed to across the Parliament the way the resource management bill was when it was first introduced in our past in 1991 it’s got a slew of supplementary order papers on the table it shows that this minister has failed to get agreement around major changes are to our primary and bro mental law and there’s been a lot of hot air from the minister and defending the bill he says we need it to keep stock out of streams well it’s taken nine years almost to do that when there are national environmental standards and a mechanism in the RMA when if he had been serious and the government had been serious about protecting rivers from stock inclusion they could have put out a national environmental standard and ensured some consistency across the country in the rules that regional councils have developed this is going to be too little too late because a lot of councils have already developed their rules around stock exclusion the minister’s saying that the bill is needed to reduce democra deuced bureaucracy but what it’s doing is reducing democracy and the ability of the public to participate in their plan making the minister it’s told the plan making processes in Christchurch and Auckland he obviously hasn’t talked to residents in christchurch because that district plan review process which years did happen in a very truncated way has meant that only those who’ve had access to lawyers and experts like planners have really been able to participate lay people have been shut out and that’s what provisions in this bill in terms of reducing the ability for lay people to participate having a bespoke planning process the streamline printing process of the bill introduces are all about reducing the ability of all of the community to engage in the plans that their councils develop and instead limiting that to development interest in those who’ve got access to money the minister claims that we need the bill because there’s duplication between the hazardous substances provisions under here snow and the RMA yet he acknowledges that there is a case before the court which will clarify this relationship so why doesn’t the government trust the courts and to make that clear mr. speaker mr. chair the bill was commented on and the act was commented on earlier this week by a Hawke’s Bay barrister Martyn Williams who said that the Act has been amended so many times by successive governments that it has become incoherent and the act at the moment was initially 383 pages that’s now nearly 700 pages long this is a 248 page bill it is going to make the Act even more complex even more difficult to administer it is going to reduce the ability of residents and communities to understand what the act is all about and how councils apply it it means that only those who’ve got and the ability to pay lawyers to interpret it for them are going to be able to participate the bill is also unnecessary because the government and the Productivity Commission with its report recently on urban planning and the government having commissioned the ministry for the environment to undertake blue skies thinking on the RMA potentially all thus becomes redundant a couple of years so why has the minister put the public and all of the seven hundred odd submitters who made quite detailed critiques of a lot of the legislation to all of this trouble to make it more complicated when blue skies thinking is underway about whether the RMA needs to be dismissed entirely and replaced with new legislation and what we heard from the minister and his first speech was quite a lot of hot air around this bill he claimed that the issue around natural hazards was important and he is right there in terms of section our sex and am I schools on the bill I’m going to go through verbal are so starting at the start clause 5 amines our part 2 of the Act to insert the management of significant risks from natural hazards as a new measure of natural national importance mr. chair and sage Thank You mr. chair and the Green Party agrees with that but this is yet another example of the government being all show and no substance because the majority of submitters agreed with that becoming a measure of national importance and suitably in Christchurch there were large areas that were prone to liquefaction during the earthquakes when they had been zoned for subdivision despite perfect that the Regional Council had identified these areas as being prone to let perfection that wasn’t a matter that was taken into account so it’s obvious that we need this as a matter of national importance but it’s not enough just to put it in the matters of national importance in part two because the bill goes and creates very permissive provisions around subdivision and the geological and nuclear sciences our CRI chrome research institute which has all of this expertise on natural hazards made it quite clear in its submission that they also needed to be changes to section 106 and 220 of the principal act and that’s because it’s those submissions which specify the circumstances in which a consent or party can refuse a subdivision consent and the conditions on around what share subdivision can see may be granted and at the moment section 106 only allows a consent authority to refuse or conditionally approve a subdivision consent in quite limited circumstances around specific hazards and they are whether there’s going to be material damage to the land or structures from erosion from falling debris subside and slippage or inundation doesn’t talk about seismic hazards it doesn’t talk about rising water tables it doesn’t talk about sea level rise so if the government was genuinely serious about recognizing natural hazards and planning instruments then it would have done what the regulatory impact statement suggested and gone ahead with the amendments that were originally proposed to those two sections to allow councils to actually pot conditions on subdivisions and those consents but no this bill is going to make subdivisions permitted once the land has been zoned residential so once again it’s an example of all show we put something in Section six but no substance and I guess the only thing we have to be thankful for in this bill mr. chair is the fact that it was widespread public opposition from environmental organizations community other community organizations and others that stopped the minister from taking and X 2 Section six and seven to completely undermining all the bottom lines in part 2 as his predecessor the Honorable Amy Adams had proposed and it was that opposition that had the government running scared on doing that but nevertheless there has been a fundamental broken promise on this bill because the prime minister at the last election promised that there would be an exposure draft he gave people the impression that there might be some genuine consultation on the bill before it was introduced that didn’t happen and it’s been a symbolic process through select committee to get to the stage that we’re at at the moment the other issue with the natural hazards is that there is no definition of significant what constitute a significant risk from natural hazards the minister has promised a national policy statement there is still no national policy statement on indigenous biodiversity despite the fact that there has been a matter of national importance under Section sixy from the time the act was first passed in 1991 it’s been reversed by successive governments and hasn’t been developed and implemented so I have no confidence that one on natural hazards will be are developed anytime soon and our major concern is again around the streamlined planning provisions that bespoke planning process that that will cut the community out and when you’re doing with natural hazards when you’re dealing with how communities assess risk and what actions should be taken as a result of that assessment of risk you need everybody involved but the planning process is that the minister is going through with the nature national planning templates are now become national planning standards and the streamline process ramin mean that there’s much less likelihood that people will be genuinely involved in the cetera take a number of other calls to highlight the Green Party’s opposition to many other sections of causes in this bill I call grant Robertson match mr. chair the first

Leave a Reply

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