Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (18) – Part 1

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (18) – Part 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


cannot support that killed at our ticket or grant Robertson oh I’m sure them fit appropriately come after me because I’ve got some questions for them I want to focus my intervention here on Klaus 37 especially around the question of the National what the artist formerly known as the national planning template now called national planning standards but before i do mr. sure i’ve got a specific question around sop number 281 in the name of multimer fox which has been debated a number of times already in the committee this is the deal is it were to make sure that the rules around [Music] regulations that prohibit or remove certain rules do not apply to rules with types of rules that regulate the growing of crops that are genetically modified organisms and I just want to be clear on the definition of the word crop as to whether or not that actually includes think very much whether or not that actually includes rye grasses pine trees for instance are they crops certainly around pine trees I know that that would be one of the concerns that was being raised when this matter was put forward that the definition of the word crops are a little hard to find none of my foxes just arrived in the hip sorry I shouldn’t say that the monocots might now be able to respond to me I’m just looking for some assistance from the member for the SOP number 281 preps through the minister as to whether or what the definition of the word crop is and whether or not there does include are things like certain types of grasses rye grass or particularly pine trees I do note mr. cheer that in a quick search of other legislative definitions of the word crop I have come across one in a regulatory bill from 1999 which says crops means crops with a matured or otherwise or with a naturally grown or plant has attached to land by roots or forming part of trees or plants a texture land and then it says but does not include trees and or pasture so so that’s actually but then I think that’s quite an interesting cause because it specifically excludes trees from the definition of crops so if the intention of Madame arefox in sop number 281 has been to cover GMOs generally in the environment I think we’ve clarified a little bit today that we’re not talking about GMOs in the lab good but now we are talking about excluding crops here and are I for one you know looking at this sop want to be sure a that we know what we’re voting for but be that it meets the concerns of the groups who have been advocating for this and as I say I know from previous work in this space GM pine trees is definitely one of the issues that has been put out there and rye grass as well mr. Parker that’s right so I’m sure the minister there the officials or the member who’s drafted the SOP will be able to help us with that definition of the word crops least we be misleading members of the public as to the extent of the of the exclusion for GMO GMOs within those plans mr. Chia to return now to Clause 37 as I said the artist formerly known as the national planning template template now called a national planning standard and mr. chair in the submission process the nearly the majority of submitters actually supported the concept of a team planning template and that’s understandable because they’re kind of guidance is actually useful and important but the concern that submitters raised throughout the process having got the heads around the idea that there would be a template seventy-seven percent of submitters actually had problems with its implementation and the Select Committee clearly gave quite significant consideration to this and basically tore apart Clause 37 put some other bits in but I don’t think they’ve solved two of the fundamental problems which I want to talk about now and perhaps the minister can help me enlighten me on this I now want to refer particularly to what is now 58 c 3 which talks about what a national planning standard may do and it may specify the structure and form of regional policy statins and plans absolutely fine 3b direct local authorities to use a particular structure or form for regional policy statements and plants and here we start again mr. chair to get into the overreach of the minister we talked about this earlier on and cause 105 that the regulatory power was going to fail here we’ve got moving beyond what’s a template to actually the content of that team play and we then go to 56 absolutely 58 c3b to direct local authorities to include specific provisions in their policy statements and plans that’s not a template anymore mr. chair that is a direction from the mischief you should probably ring a bell unfortunately ride a crime rather find out was oh it was so enlightening mr. Jia that you were you were gripped by my words I understand there ah and somni with his eyes open minister bet years and in so in 58 c 32 we have a National Planning standard that would mustn’t may include specific that major eat local authorities to include specific provisions in their policy statements and plants this is the very kind of overreach that we’re talking about today mr. chair where the minister is taking powers that would have that shouldn’t would lie in the hands of regional councils and using an instrument that he has all the templates to do that and mr. chair that is actually not what is the submitters who actually favored this we’re looking for it in fact they were quite clear in the concerns that they raised a number of them if we look down the opposition so seventy-seven percent opposed this implementation the reasons for their included lack of evidence for a new planning instrument of this type that came from district councils and erie and then erosion of local decision and democracy and decision making and that’s exactly what this clause does and just look at the group’s mr. chair who actually opposed this the stevenson group the coca-cola district council local government New Zealand the resource management lure Association the PCE the parliamentary commissioner for the environment Genesis Energy and Fish and Game you know you’d hardly get all of those people in the room and all at once at the same time without some sort of barnyard brawl and here they all are telling the minister that he’s overreaching again that he’s actually putting in place a measure that will a road local democracy and that will actually undermine the very premise of the RMA that decision-making should be power should be held at the local level close to those who know how to solve the problems and if the minister gets up and tells me that this is about guidance this is about making sure that this consistency that’s what NP esas and in ESS are about that’s the very purpose of those and so for a piece of legislation that’s allegedly here to make things easier and more effective and more efficient it’s just another layer it’s another layer and it’s so poorly developed that it’s another layer that ends up with the same acronym is one of the layers that already exists so now we’ve got two types of NPS ‘it’s we’ve got national policy statements and national planning standards and national environment standards so it’s some sort of weird hybrid morphed body of the two that’s emerged out of the Select Committee as they try and clean up the mists that the minister has created for them so mr. Chia you know there are real concerns about the implementation of this template or standard and I want to just mention the submission of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council because i think the estimation HD sums up we’re the good could be in this but where it goes off the rails and they’ve said that a template or now called a standard should be limited to a pattern or plan format that identifies the plan format and layout he planning provisions including for both text and the associated planning Maps matters that the council should address provisions that must be included as a result of existing rules and plans and in pieces and a glossary of terms that’s actually a useful set of things that will help guide and make more and more effective the way in which our plans work at the moment at a regional and local level and they are who proves math people from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council but sadly despite the best efforts of the of the Select Committee we haven’t actually seen sufficient changes to address those ideas I just want to mention in the time that’s remaining to me some through the concerns around the implementation of the template and in particular submitters who were very concerned about the amount of power that was given to the minister to decide on template content and submitters were particularly concerned that it was no requirement for here a hearing and no Evan used for appeal again mr. chair this is just a good example of the way in which the minister and you know if we give him credit was trying to find a way to make the act more effective and more efficient has actually just ended up making it more complex more difficult has added a layer of uncertainty and confusion to the planning process we could do so much better I think everybody in this house knows there are ways to improve the way that plans are drafted there are the odd element in this bill that does there unfortunately the national planning template could have been a good idea but its implementation is deeply flawed the Honorable next mr. chairman I’m happy to take a quick call

Leave a Reply

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