Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage – Clauses 1 and 2 – Part 5
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage – Clauses 1 and 2 – Part 5


the Honorable Ruth Dyson you and I’m trying to recall when the last time it was that this Parliament had voting together the ex parte the Green Party I think I’ve just about ruled out pretty well every opportunity that’s even before ex parte the Green Party United Future New Zealand first labour said all of it and on the other side national in d’marie parties you’d think that in with something is important to you Zealand and is widely supported across the political spectrum over the last three decades the minister would think we’ve got a problem here but the minister is content heaven done a sleazy little deal with the Maori Party and it’s the only way you can describe it the master is happy to get this legislation progressed by just one vote the narrowest of possible majorities I thought that vote might go last night when madam arefox of the Maori Party described what crops meant and who deal with the minister unfortunately the minister described to the house what crops meant in the bill and they were really different definitions the minister said crops is about vegetables or cereals or fruit and Madam arefox said no no crops is that but also about rye grass in pine trees one of them is wrong and actually you know normally I’d say it’ll be madam a fox because she’s new to the house and she’s not in charge of the legislation but actually given the track record I’d beat it’s the minister that’s wrong what but there will be the first case that has taken to court the minister see is this is reducing bureaucracy in reducing litigation the first case to be here in Port will be over the definition of crop in pure Hawke’s Bay who have been assured by madam arefox then it includes rye grass in trees I think she’ll be calling them is a witness they were party to the process of discussion they were party not directly but involved in the discussions to give quality advice and they’ve been let down I think madam a fox will be pretty grumpy and I’ve seen her being quite grumpy in this house be afraid as all that I could say to the national body because you shouldn’t Trek members on whose votes you are relying on it’s just wrong the National Party is wrong about another thing they’re saying that this flawed bill will fix the housing crisis in Auckland they say that’s the point of it next month’s often up on his feet quoting how many houses are being built now compared to how few houses were being built during the time of the Labour lead government he’s wrong let me give you a couple of examples minister at 2004 the RMA was was going and then the number of building consents issued over the whole country 30 1423 the number issued last year twenty nine thousand nine hundred and seventy which of those two figures is bigger that’s correct the 2004 figure in an Auckland where we know we’ve got the worst housing crisis in the country but it certainly has spread to other places in 2004 again when the RMA was operating 12,000 115 consents granted last year 9930 which of those two figures as larger correct 2004 so the idea that these changes will fix anything is wrong in the idea that the RMA in these areas is causing the problem is just wrong as well the figures show that the minister has made a big mistake and it’s what the Select Committee heard too that’s what the Select Committee who’d day after day after day not from fringe tree-hugging groups not from groups that anyone in this house would say were extreme from a wide variety of organizations who made submissions including local government New Zealand including regional in district councils mr. chairman mr. chairman roast item including of developers such as fulton hogan including fonterra these fringe groups including airport owners the New Zealand Law Society in every environmental non-government organisation they all opposed this legislation it’s a bill that’s going to make it harder to get things done not easier the Maori Party had an opportunity using their votes that caused the majority in this legislation to make a difference make a difference not just for Marty to make a difference for New Zealand huge power they were wielding with the minister and instead they crumbled for a con I’d be pretty upset if I was them and I hope they are because they don’t deserve to be treated like they’re the the point that I’ve been making throughout other parts of the committee stage of the situation is that this carries on the trend of the last nine long years of a national lead government of reducing citizen’s right to have a say in to what happens in the area I’ve hit a recent example in my own electorate wear an asbestos dump has been allowed in a residential area can you imagine it just a street you drive up at those houses on either side and there’s now an asbestos dumped via the independent hearings panel approved this did so on a non notified consent application in specifically referenced the 2009 resource management changes and said the onus on the council’s had been completely tapped on it said that it was now no longer expected that councils notified now it was expected that councils did not notify unless there was a really really strong reason for them to do so in hibbing an asbestos dumping his street wasn’t a good enough reason that’s what the minister and his national party colleagues backed up by the Maori Party have caused a new zealand when previously we had a fixed-base legislation which of course could always be improved but which was widely supported and understood in this Parliament and outside water conservation orders have been undermined the minister has significant rulemaking powers powers of appointments to the Environmental Protection Authority extensive powers for them now that they haven’t had in the past and mr. Chairman I just want to make one final comment and it’s not on the frustration that most people in the state most people bar one in this house feel about this poorly thought through Sean Kelly dealt with legislation and it is that I find the commencement stages to be a real interest no longer do we have an X that comes into force on X date we have a neck that comes into force on three separate dates so that’s in the commencement and a close to as if this legislation isn’t confusing enough nearly the entire bill has been rewritten by the Select Committee butts have been added huge number of amendments discussed during the last and sessions of debate so sub part two of part one Pat for come an impact for coming to force on the day there is six months after the date on which this egg receives the royal a scene that’s good sub part 3 of part one comes into force on the day that is five years after the date on which this it receives the Royal Assent in the rest of the eight comes into force on the day after the date on which the set comes into Royal Assent as if the deal wasn’t bad enough as if the flawed logic to this bill wasn’t bad enough as if the process then has been pretty mangled in this house wasn’t bad enough we have a commencement three separate dates and the commencement of this legislation which is just going to layer on confusion in frustration you hit an opportunity minister to really make a difference in the space to really improve the resource management egg to get all the experts together get their identification of problems agreed in get their solutions agreed in this Carl iment would have gone forward with some willingness it doesn’t matter which political stripe the minister’s wearing if we do a proper process in good agreement we could really have made a positive difference instead what we’ve done and see us in a regression and our progressive Resource Management legislation added an opportunity for resource management lawyers to make big money and denied the public via right to have a say in to what happens and their community mikha fiery

Leave a Reply

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