Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage- Video 3 – Part 4

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage- Video 3 – Part 4

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


which seek to reduce the opportunities for public participation we oppose it I call work Dennis O’Rourke mr. chairman only one take it a short call on this on this part of the boat and just to say two things first of all to agree with what you Ginny Sage has just said about the the whole effect of of this part of the bill and it is perfectly clear that what is intended here is them is to actually minimize opportunities for the public to as little as 20 days to make submissions on what could be very complex applications now that is as you Jenny said she’d consistent with many of the other provisions in the bill I’m not going to spend long on that because I think you Jenny sage actually seated all very well and there’s no point in my repeating at all but that is the fundamental reason why New Zealand first could not possibly support this part of the bill people do need to have much longer than 20 days and to be able to assess and to submit on what can be very complex applications I want to move on to another specific point and this is the second thing I want to say and that is in relation to the new section 17 SB which is on page 139 of of the bill and in that it says in subsection 1 if the minister is satisfied that in application obviously does not comply with or is obviously inconsistent with the provisions in this act or any relevant conservation management strategy or conservation management plan he or she may decline the application mr. chairman it is a very strange piece of drafting in effect I think it’s actually quite amateurish drafting with all due respect to the drafters why is the tube obviously there it is a highly subjective term and how how can something be obvious is another issue you but I just think it’s deficient drafting it is it is clearly intended that the term obviously is to qualify the tombs non-compliance and inconsistency so it is otherwise the term that the word wouldn’t be there so it’s there to qualify non-compliance or inconsistency with the act and therefore it is open to the minister to approve an application even if it is not compliant or is not inconsistent because it is not obviously so that is actually what a court would be open to a court to find so why on earth is this tomb obviously there if it’s not for any reason other than that which I have said mr. Chairman I think the minister should look at that and if he’s genuine about about the whole system that’s set out here he would delete the term obvious because it is highly problematic and in my view actually creates more problems than it solves and I want to refer to what it says in the commentary about this and there’s one sentence only about it and it says this and i quote as amended new section 17 SB would clarify that the minister may decline obviously non-complying applications without having to make a decision on this within the originally proposed 20 working day period what on earth is that supposed to mean it doesn’t to me at any clarity to it at all in fact I believe that the addition of the word obviously actually does exactly the opposite it makes it very unclear what can be declined in what what cannot be so I just want to point that out to the Minnesota it’s another reason we would vote against it now if the minister wishes to simply gloss over that that’s fine but I say to him it isn’t an obvious deep defect that the word obviously is being put in there why if you took the word obviously out it would yeah obviously obviously if you took the weird seriously out it wouldn’t actually change what the what I believe that the sub section is intended to me but the addition of the word obviously actually creates a difficulty because it can only be taken to qualify the inconsistency or the non-compliance and what that means i’m not sure but it’s an issue I just draw to the minister’s attention will be voting against it anyway mr. other adopt Axman I am happy to provide

Leave a Reply

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