Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 6
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 6


I can fight Jerry Thank you Thank You mr. speaker I’m I want to respond to achievement of our select committee in following his acknowledgment of the submitters mr. Chia and I want to say that of the very broad range of submitters who came in front of the Select Committee many of them opposed and mr. mr. speaker including local government New Zealand great many regional and district councils we had major land developers including fulton hogan we had major corporates including fonterra so we had infrastructural owners including airport and quarry owners we had all environmental non-government organizations like the new zealand in the new zealand law society and numerous others here even a mine even among those sue who purported to support the bill we’re guarded in their words here they use words like we support the intent of the bill before criticising much of its detail so I also listened to the minister’s opening address and thus dude reading of this important piece of legislation and I follow on the point around getting i guess a streamlining planning processes through national templates definitely around standardizing terminology and i listened titli to the minister’s reasoning for why this has been bought in this bill and then he stopped and I was hoping the minister would explain we’re taking and standardizing templates and terminology then extends himself unto the contents and the plan provisions themselves that was the bit that I was hoping the minister could explain why he feels the need to take those decision-making powers from democratically elected councils that’s what I was hoping in our here sir but he never gave them so so what’s the upshot the upshot sir is local and regional plans are now out and then instead we’ve got a national government propped up by the Maori party’s plans are in so every counts around this country should fear sir the communities that they represent the environmental groups that they represent even the National Party children and their grandchildren should we have real concerns around the protection of our environment which is what the rmn is doing and so the powers that my colleague david parker spoke about in terms of the 36 DD and my overarching broad-based cars at the minister for me sir and for many listeners I didn’t think we got a justifiable reason from the minister himself and this is a fundamental issue with this bill as I read it and I never heard from the minister why he requires requires that amount of power and the RM a bill that that’s how that sends a clear signal out to councils we don’t trust you to do it yourself we don’t trust you to actually set these boundaries of course we want fresh water course course we won’t clean water and actually the government can start by actually raising the standard of water quality from way double justice or mobile we can do that we don’t we don’t need this we can do that you can do this tomorrow but no we don’t we have given the minister the powers to override local plans ensure that is a sad day in this country when we do that the minister also made some statements during the debate of this house that this bill will will help not only streamline cleaning provisions will take out the confusion ensue in the paper today an article written by Jared Hutchings of the New Zealand farmer stated there actually that the base of this this particular this legislation to is so important to New Zealanders that it’s even watched overseas and he made this point that the law that we are passing will create a mess that’s his words quote amiss it creates a lot of uncertainty which will have to be cleaned up and that was taken in made by the federated Farmers president William Rallis them that’s what he said when he watched the debate of the spill all he was over in Rome sir so there are actually national parties own supporters that have ruled deep concerns with this bill that it is not going to lead collector clarification and clarity clarity for well for people out there New Zealand it’s actually going to lead to a lot of confusion sir and mark my word I actually believe it’s going to lead to the litigation it’s going to lead to litigation and when it goes to court as the minister wells know they’re going to actually take the the base from this house when proving their case and I want to I want to just just take the house to that point because when we were asking the Marty party for the explanation of crops here when we asked in either the minister or the mighty party what was the meant by the definition of crops we eat she got two different answers we actually got two different answers we’ve got that it was restricted to restricted to cereals fruits and vegetables that’s what we got from the minister that’s what we got and the Maori Party came back and see it actually no includes grasses and forests so when we get when those parties yes yes you cheap a point of order grand so I apologize to my colleague mecha fighter ii but mama foxes repeated interjection that as she was lying was as as outside of standing orders there are many many speakers rulings on that and I asked to be with drink before I deal with that matter i’m going to ask a next month to stand with drawer and apologize for interjecting during a point of order mr. speaker withdraw and apologize Marama Fox did you use those words you said it I withdraw and apologize onwards a bit of you know seriousness might have helped make it before the fourth pick of ivory starts again and it’s probably i was going to interrupt her at the the two-minute bill but just to indicate the clock is running about a minute behind time on the advice of my predecessor in the in the chair there were what he regarded as frivolous and objections earlier in one minute will be added to her time at the end of her speech so she actually has now almost four minutes to go mikha favorite thank you thank you mr. mr. speaker as I was saying I heard in this house two definitions when asked to define the exclusion clause that the Marty party presented in the house and we got I heard two different versions here which isn’t going to help those parties will who only recourse the challenge the the minister’s overarching plans is to seek remedies in the court and that’s where debates in the house are going to be cleared or the point I’m making is that there is some confusion it won’t lead to clarity as the minister purports which then leads me to the Marty party the multi-party who will have to stand and be accountable for the many kaitiaki around this country and fact one just returned back to the Napier port have been sold out on tomato maui to protest on the seismic ship we’re going to have to send the motor party going to have to stand and and in defend their position of supporting a piece of legislation that will allow the minister to override regional and local plans that’s it can’t see any more simple they’re going to have to defend their positions do but when i listened for why the mighty party and the secret deals with the National Party are supporting this bill we don’t told he we participation please that was the game again in this house I heard from the member of the Marty party that it included not just planning but also consenting in monitoring and I think the Minister for getting up and clarifying that we put us in prayer but the patient planes only involve planning at the frontier does not involve monitoring there’s not involved consenting because he said it remains that the council sure these are the thank you sir two minutes this is the humbug that we are getting from the Mardi parties for their support of the spin II we planning participation plans which were already in the RMA Oh which 124 hapu and here we see already have some arrangement with local councils in fact eighty-three percent of all councils throughout New Zealand so you have some sort of arrangement with local hapu an OE berry memorandum or understandings or joint planning committees so when you pull back the argument and the justification for why what deal has been done here it’s not obvious here there has been no gain for almighty because many of them have already it’s an earlier point made here and there’s confusion around how much input here we are going to head through this cause and the minister has clarified it all you’re getting is what you’re already had how is it again how is what you’re already had and it was already there but you getting it now is again that’s where the MartyParty are going to be held accountable sir the other the other point and I do want to acknowledge the work of the Select Committee sir we’ve had squeezed and squeezed in order also acknowledge the officials there that support of this leak money having 700 submissions in over 130 a pee before the sleek committee it was a very complex bills fear that we had to endure so I do want to acknowledge the work of the officials and supporting us but Sir there is a real concern I have that when we have anything contentious definitions in terms and in legislation whether it is the role of our PCO office to make that determination or should it be done at the Select Committee I believe it should be done at the sleek committee level sir and in too many instances and the spill sure that didn’t occur and that’s unfortunate but this is a bill that labor is definitely not supporting because the minister has an outline the support and I I think they’re talking about the speaker david seymour rice on behalf of the ACT party

Leave a Reply

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