Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (10) – Part 1

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (10) – Part 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


going to get special rights and that’s wrong I’m calling Phil Twyford Thank You mr. chairman I want to make some comments about Klaus 105 but if you’ll allow me I want to provide some context to this discussion and the first is for people who haven’t paid a lot of attention to that so they all of the public debates around the RMA it’s important to note that the RMA provides a framework for all of the planning can same thing and land use decisions that happen in our country the actual decisions are made by councils they’re made by the elected local representatives in those communities but the drafters of the RMA always assumed that there would need to be a balance between local decision-making and local knowledge and local ownership of those decisions and national direction from central government guidance from central government about matters that are in the national interest and things with isn’t there’s a need to have consistency in order across the country and not just letting a thousand flowers bloom now the minister in the chair Nick Smith and has very very good friend for Prime Minister Bill English have spent the last 10 years blaming the RMA and blaming councils for expensive housing it’s been their main their go-to alibi for a failed housing policy over the last eight years blaming the council’s and blaming the RMA but the real culprit here and we differ with some of the other parties in this house because we believe sir that actually an overly restrictive planning system is one of the root causes if not the primary root cause of the extraordinary housing problems that have beset this country but we need to be really clear sir that it’s the failure to provide national direction on questions of land use and planning that is at the heart of the problem we’ve got an inlet and housing and Nick Smith has been blaming the RMA and blaming Council’s for eight years but has done precious little to address that problem and he finally after seven years in government bought a national policy statement out which was a wet bus ticket it’s simply put in place a bureaucratic mechanism that directed councils to release little bits of land into the into the supply lands that could be used for housing development every time after after measuring the projected demand it was a an incredibly bureaucratic mechanism that would do nothing to address the fundamental cause of a speculative urban land market caused by highly restrictive planning practices so that’s the problem we’ve got and that’s the necessary context for a consideration of the housing related aspects of the spill in particularly clause 105 a failure by this government to provide national direction to councils about the parameters the limits and what should be in their plans and their consent in decisions a failure by this national government to do that and then an unfolding nicht astra fee and i have to credit I have to credit the member fletcher tabaco from New Zealand first for coining that phrase because that’s what it is sir it is an extra fee and then what we see is that the minister brings I just asked you to just keep it seemly thinking and feel of it and then mr. chairman the minister brings this bill to the house that does everything but address the core problems caused by a failed and overly restrictive planning system that has that has spawned the worst most unaffordable house prices in the world according to the magazine the economy just so we’re going to go into a lot of detail sorry about the clauses on this bill but actually it’s really important to note that what the this bill doesn’t do and we have some SOPs on the table that do address the core problems it doesn’t actually put the conditions in place to create competitive urban land markets that is the core problem we do not have it particularly in our biggest city in Auckland we do not have competitive urban land markets and all this bill and all the ministers national policy statement on Urban Development does is as layer over layer after layer of tinkering mr. chairman now I want to talk about Klaus 1050 clock because that is that that is one of the it’s a classic example in this bill from next myth that instead of actually dealing with the core problems what of the lack of national direction and the need to deliver competitive urban land markets by freeing up the planning rules that stops to these growing up and growing out what this bill does is is actually gives the minister arbitrary and excessive regular regulation making powers now I’ve already made the point mr. chairman that by using the existing instruments in the RMA like a national policy statement and like national environmental standards but in this case particularly a good well crafted NPS with clear directive language could actually have achieved years ago years ago could have achieved what’s so desperately needed but what this bill does is it gives the minister a raft of other arbitrary powers that I think have other unintended consequences and we can see Sir from the departmental report and what happened at select committee a deluge of criticism from very credible and informed stakeholders who had some pretty savage things to say about the provisions in clause 105 so what’s caused 105 do it gives the minister regulation making power to permit particular land-use activities to prohibit some planning provisions and to override other planning provisions that restrict land use in a way that’s not reasonably required to achieve the purpose of the RMA nothing that could not be achieved through a national policy statement so let’s let’s see what what stakeholders said at the at the Select Committee first so they pointed out that other national Direction tools exist these excessive and arbitrary powers that the minister is effectively handling to himself to override local plans and local decisions and not needed because the drafters of the RMA put those tools those instruments and national policy statement and national environmental standards into the RMA that are much more elegant they are much more constrained by due process and they don’t represent what Klaus 105 embodies and that is a huge transfer of of arbitrary and unchecked regulation making powers into the hands of the minister Fonterra seeds to the committee there is no demonstrable need for this additional power to reside with the minister the New Zealand planning institute said that there are other mechanisms to address these concerns secondly a number of submitters including the New Zealand Law Society described the the provisions the regulation making powers in this clause as a hint Henry the Eighth Clause it would empower the minister to make regulations that would effectively override the statutory powers of local councils to control land use through the imposition of planning provisions the Law Society pointed out that these kind of decisions should be made by the Parliament not by the executive and that I think it’s a very important principle there are so many other our criticisms relating to this the undermining of local decision-making federated Farmers pointed out that these powers that are regarding matters that are otherwise delegated to be managed at local governance level are excessively heavy handed so they people said that these powers would create additional costs and complexities the New Zealand Law Society said that costly analysis would be required to interpret the inconsistencies between the plans and any regulations made under the new section that’s imposed under Clause 1056 and 360 d so I think so this provision really it really speaks to the fundamental flaw and this ministers approach to our email form he hasn’t used in eight years in government he hasn’t used the very tools that were put in place in the area made to allow central government to provide national guidance on these issues he’s using this myth this bill sir to transfer huge regulation making powers that are unjustified that will make the bill more costly more expensive more complicated and more of a burden to the people who rely on a mischievous you are the Honorable dr. I so kind of us the chairman about my moment such a point of order yes our point of order Davidson mr. chair I’m flattered and amazed to see that David Parker and dinner so raw no no no no no no what’s the point of order this is not about a discussion specifically I’m giving you the call on a point of order what is the point of order I was just about to get to that mr. chair well I want to get it now have directly word for word except for one possibly typographical mistake in the case of dinosaur or plagiarized my amendments no no no no that’s not a point of order that’s so just note no guidance no I am the guidance of soompi this this so order I’m membership a member was simply that this is a debating point and it’s not a point of order when you get a call you could bring those letters you up that’s AB debating point about someone else who may be using that material it’s not a point of order in terms of the process of the house so that’s my ruling and I’m calling the Honorable doctor next month with speaker david seymour are you mr. speaker just you material well I’ll put it this way i will move that the speaker be recalled if that’s your ruling because i don’t think that’s fear at all um I I’m not sure that you’re overruled your point you allow me to speak a little bit further to the point of order mr. chair no I’m not okay horse it’s not a point of order it is a matter of debate between what someone else my views in terms of the material and what you consider to be your material those are debating points now not a point a point of order and seats of the process of the house all right and that’s the ruling that I’ve made now here David seema’s sought that the speaker Barry called are you are you asking for the speaker to be recalled absolutely because I don’t think you’ve properly understood what I’m saying well you need to move then that the speaker be recalled I move that the speaker be recalled the question knows that the speaker be recalled days of that opinion will say I to the contrary know they knows habit I’m calling the Honorable doctor next month mr. Chairman I just want today

Leave a Reply

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