Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 3

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 3

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


now that’s my ruling I’m calling on the Honorable David Parker thank you Thank You mr. speaker Mr Speaker we heard it again from the minister and I think it’s got to be said that the reduction of the many dimensions of the housing crisis in Auckland to the vilification of planning in the RMA is just politically dishonest sue blaming the RMA and planners for the text biases and the inequality that’s driven home ownership in New Zealand to the lowest level since the 1950s for over 60 years is just wrong blaming the RMA and planners for the pressure caused by amongst the highest rate of economic migration into a city is just wrong sir planners planners cannot be held to account for the shortage of motive waste space in Auckland sir the the the truth is the RMA has been enforced since 1992 and 2004 when the RMA was enforced there was 34,000 consents for new houses in New Zealand and 2016 that went down to 30,000 in Auckland the drop was more extreme it went down from twelve thousand and two thousand and four to nine thousand and two thousand and sixteen that was a decrease of twenty-five percent disregarding population growth which had gone up by about twenty percent so the per capita drop and house building over that period under the RMA was more than thirty percent over that same period housing costs in quizzes not land costs building costs increased by ninety six percent and the average house size increased by twenty one percent the RMA did not cause those problems and has not caused those problems sir I think it’s if I think it’s true that those facts dismantle the blame or the severity of the blame that’s attached to the RMA for the housing crisis now this so this means that this appalling RMA amendment which is now being pushed over which through can’t be justified by the housing crisis now that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been silly RMA rules under plans that have constrained the supply of land it’s been the Labour Party policy for more than five years to fix that through a national policy statement under the RMA that was always open to the government that is still open to the government and that they have never properly pursued there are other things that are needed and what’s it oh you’re an effective attempt in November after eight years in power now the minister’s just proved the fallacy of his own logic he said we’ve done it in November under the existing RMA he doesn’t need this amendment to do it I heard that right that we got served up and respect of fresh water quality of course we need debt national guidance and respective of of fresh water quality that saw them better than the polluted sludge that we’re being dealt with by the current government of course we need rules about fencing there can also be done through national guidance under the existing re-made and if and if there was a problem with the detail of that why didn’t the minister fix that in the last eight years then if that was all this bill was doing we’d have no objection to it but there are so many other terrible parts to this bill which is why when this if this bill passes through two votes from the Mara party pushing it over the line by one vote then it will be because this is just such an appalling piece of legislation following a terrible process with a select committee process has been abused with a normal rules of parliament have been taken advantage of pushing this bill through as one part without a decent committee debate and then trying to get it through tonight so that the political embarrassment to the National Party and the married party is minimized I want to sir deal with a little one of the issues relating to the Maori Party the Maori Party said that they opposed the National Party having the rule the right to knock out anti-gm rules and plans now the current law in New Zealand is that the release cision for a GMO is taken by the Environmental Protection Authority and that’s the safety decision we say the clinical decision for medical uses of GMOs should be for clinicians not councils but the existing law does allow and should continue to allow economic decisions to be taken by local councils such as in the Hawke’s Bay who say that they don’t for the economic reasons which can be challenged by anyone and their plan processes including through appeals to the Environment Court they say they shouldn’t have they don’t want GM crops in their area for the next GM plants and their area for the next 10 years and that’s legal at the moment now Minister Smith hates us and he doesn’t he’s not brave enough to come to this house and pass an amendment to make as know the empowering legislation a code he wants to give himself a ministerial override power that not those rules out by regulation which is one of the many draconian regulation making powers taking power off local democracy and giving it to the minister the Maori Party are supporting that they came along they said fixed it by a provision which said that that regulation making power to knock out rules and plans couldn’t be used in respect of GM crops well what does that mean because the word crops isn’t defined in the legislation so as the minister quite rightly said in the committee stage in the in the house crops will be given its natural or literal or ordinary meaning and that meaning as the minister it out and the dictionary is that crops are the produce of plants such as cereals fruits and vegetables not pasture not grass and so the married part is now running around trying to tell everyone well it includes grass and includes trees and then they show the fallacy of their own logic by saying look at the first Registration Act crops include trees well in that act there’s a definition that says for the purpose of that act a crop includes a tree it actually goes the opposite way the fact that there’s no such a definition here goes to the point that in this legislation crop just means crocs as the dictionary say the reduce to plants like cereals fruit and vegetables not trees not grasses this will be visited upon the merry party and they’ve been shown to be hapless in respect of this issue sir some other problems with us you know we can go too far with us the the the issue of property rights and the balance between there and controls and plans is a very valid one the Productivity Commission report that came out last week which actually bets essentially what Labour Party and actually the egg party are saying in respect of urban development issues need even development agencies you need a nice and national policy state you need to get rid of the urban boundary and replace it with decent rules around infrastructure and financing a very close to what the greens are saying too because we’re all logical in our economics and the New Zealand first party what we are it’s the Luddites in the National Party that’s the Luddites and the National Party you’ve got this completely wrong anyway sir the productivity commission’s they that they’re not actually saying that what’s this is what’s being done here is necessary they’re not saying we should then no they’re not they’re not saying that we should do away with with the rights of people to have a say in respect of a sub divisional application you know the opponents to that included not just people who thought that they should have a say if they’re close to a subdivision that included the airports and the quarry’s who say that if they don’t have a say in a subdivision close to them and then there’ll be reversed sensitivity concerns into the future ten years time someone will say oh we’ve got a house here now we shouldn’t have an airport it’s too noisy or dusty have a quarry please shut down that’s that sort of nonsensical outcome is and future costs from the planning system is caused by this they also say that not having appeal rights and these are developers saying this in respect of a sub divisional application there’s nonsense because it were your encouraging councils to impose excessive or stupid conditions and not letting anyone have a remedy so is that going to drive down the cost of housing or is it going to increase the complexity of council conditions use your common sense next honorable next Smith because we know the answer is going to make things worse there are lots of other problems the the problems in respect of the reserves Act I don’t have time to go through there are some good provisions in here and respect of the Public Works Act even some of the provisions around national guidance I don’t quite like the way they’ve done them but we could have gone along with the EM if it wasn’t for the glaring problems that there are in other parts of this sir sir this does include various routes for draconian ministerial powers to override local democracy you know right no nervous that we all agree this should be standard templates and end rules its standard templates and definitions but when you drop those powers so widely that they go to the substance of conditions you’re going too far and that’s what they’ve done here it’s what the National Party often does they actually don’t believe in local democracy they always think they’re right and everyone else is wrong so you can’t delegate these things to council and then give these powers to the minister it’s it’s just wrong so the many other faults in this bill have only been touched on superficially in the committee stage debate because the way in which that was run there is a need to change standing orders so that bills return to multi parts of their complex dealing with lots of things because otherwise you know these issues do not get properly debated and there are there are a number of time has expired Mr Speaker I call Scott some Thank You mr. speaker

Leave a Reply

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