Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (19) – Part 1

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (19) – Part 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


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 just to answer a number of the questions that members have raised and let me work through those grant Robertson has raised concerns he keeps referring to it as a planning template it’s a planning standard and that’s right but but here’s the but everybody wants the omelet no one wants to break the eve that is if we are serious about reducing the 80 thousand pages of our ma plans and policies across New Zealand we do not need for new zealand 800 different classifications of residential zones we don’t need 55 different definitions on how you measure the height of a building and what you are doing in terms of those planning standards is actually saying it is for councils to choose where residential and where commercial activities will be but we need to standardize them across the country and that makes good sense in respective Catherine Delahunty s concerns about participation she makes a very flawed assumption and that is that the environment wins from slow processes without a resource management acts since 1991 and we only have two councils out of 16 that yet have rules for excluding stock from streams slow bureaucratic processes when we are dealing with environmental issues actually does not help and that is why actually the measures to speed up plan making actually is good for the environment in respect to mr. Twyford he had a question around development bonds he’s missed the boat this government made changes to the local government act four years ago that allows there to be bonds for infrastructure it’s in the local government act it’s already in the law and the part I fell ironic about mr. Triffids contribution is that every time it comes to an actual housing development whether it’s pointing ‘land whether it’s three kings whether it’s in mungry he’s opposed so he wants more houses but actually every time we have a housing development he invent some cultural landscape or some other reason as to why he’s opposed now mr. penny hun re raised the question in respect of the issues around the ue participation arrangements and how they interact with treaty settlements there’s a very specific provision in the part that says that treaty settlements are sacrosanct and do not override those ewee participation arrangements mr. chairman the most ironic contribution came from Gareth use he has moved an amendment before the house that wants to put climate change effects back into the RMA now the interesting thing is I have the hand side before me from 2004 when the Green Party voted to take it out in fact I’ve got the speech before me from Jeanette Fitzsimmons who voted for the resource management amendment bill in 2004 that distinctly took climate change out of the RNA and so I think it really does show a confused position David Parker has asked the question as to how our crops are defined and I would simply refer to them in the Oxford Dictionary and it’s not the only bill that would refer to crops and that is that they are produce of cultivated plants such as cereals vegetables or fruit the last question in which the answer is with respect to david seymour david seymour ask the questions that he could only support an RMA reform bill that dealt with the issues and the principles of the act and section six and seven well mr. see mortis it’s a simple problem it’s a simple problem now you see that your biggest concern with this bill was that you could not support it because it did not make changes to section six and seven there’s a simple issue of arithmetic there is not a majority of members in this Parliament that support changes to sections six and seven I will wish him well for the election coming up on September the 23rd in the event that we have a majority in the parliament we would well your support at that time but I am disappointed that you’ve chosen not to support over 20 other amendments that actually make a real difference in terms of both housing and the economy in making processes work better finally outside mr. Seymour with respect to section 3 6th ed he expressed his opposition because he was concerned it may end up like the economic stabilization act and end up with regulations that would be excessively used can I tell you where the member is mistaken 360 d can only be used for reducing regulation it can only be used for use in regulation by definition yes it does it can only be used and the member who interjects and I challenge mr. Seymour give me any example under section 36 DD where it could be used to increase restrictions on owners what it does do is appropriately was killing what section 36 DD mr. chairman 36 DD is a mechanism for reducing duplication of regulation and i’m very surprised the egg party as opposed to david seymour an opportunity to

Leave a Reply

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