Government plans RMA power grab

29 comments on “Government plans RMA power grab ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   9 March 2016 at 8:39 am

   “There is a consultation process that the Minister has to set up if he is thinking of using these regulatory powers. But his discretion is huge. All he has to be is satisfied that a change is desirable and the threshold is met.”

   Why are you assuming the minister is male?
   • vto 1.1

     9 March 2016 at 8:43 am

     Maybe the same reason that the current strangulation law change proposal is always referenced as male
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       9 March 2016 at 9:04 am

       Does the proposed law say that, or just the commentary from the media?
   • mickysavage 1.2

     9 March 2016 at 8:56 am

     The current minister is a male.
     • Lanthanide 1.2.1

       9 March 2016 at 9:03 am

       I doubt there’s a sunset clause on this proposed legislation that ends when the gender of the minister changes.
       • mickysavage 1.2.1.1

         9 March 2016 at 9:12 am

         Nick Smith who is the current Minister is a male. I thought about using “he or she” but decided to use “he” to emphasise that Smith is the Minister likely to exercise the power. Care to address the merits of the post?
         • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1

           9 March 2016 at 9:21 am

           I would have just said “The minster” or “they”.

           I don’t have any other comment on the post. I made the comment I did because that’s the comment I had.
           • One Two 1.2.1.1.1.1

             9 March 2016 at 9:55 am

             Time for some inward reflection if that is what you have to offer
             • Lanthanide …

               9 March 2016 at 11:36 am

               I’m perfectly happy pointing out things I think could have been written better.
               • mickysavage …

                 9 March 2016 at 4:54 pm

                 *headdesk*
   • Gabby 1.3

     9 March 2016 at 5:09 pm

     Why are you assuming ‘he’ is male?
     • Lanthanide 1.3.1

       9 March 2016 at 5:13 pm

       It is true that the masculine personal pronoun ‘he’ used to be used when talking about abstract people. However that is no longer considered politically correct.
       • Gabby 1.3.1.1

         9 March 2016 at 5:43 pm

         That is no longer considered considered.
   • Ron 1.4

     13 March 2016 at 1:44 am

     Who cares who’s who. Its the changes that are important. This is not a gener issue.
2. ianmac 2

   9 March 2016 at 9:03 am

   Shades of ECan takeover. This Government resents Community Democracy. If not a Democracy I guess you have a Dictatorship.
   Perhaps modelled on Fiji?
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     9 March 2016 at 6:39 pm

     +1

     National hates democracy as it give the people power over their rich mates money making ventures.
3. Mosa 3

   9 March 2016 at 9:26 am

   Looks like these changes are going to directly effect rate payers who don’t have the money for representation
   The winners will be lawyers
   and expensive consultants
4. greywarshark 4

   9 March 2016 at 1:47 pm

   Oh fuck what the hell. Can we not set up a straw-woman when there is something really important to consider?? I care about what is going on. Why should the attention go on whether it is a male or a female criminal politician? People here that discuss think and argue never fail to surprise with their anomalies that rise up divisively and fog the point at issue.
   • Jenny Kirk 4.1

     9 March 2016 at 4:45 pm

     I agree greywarshark – people going off at tangents that are related but not relevant – very irritating.

     Meanwhile clarifying comment from a district council planning officer on new section in RMA clause 360D says –

     ” Subsection (1)(d) gives the Minister power to make regulations to prohibit or override rules that, in the Minister’s opinion, duplicate, overlap with, or deal with the same subject matter as included in other legislation. This is the worrying clause for councils attempting to regulate GMOs. …… My understanding is that the intent of the amendment is also that regulations made under subsection (1)(d) can require existing rules to be withdrawn or amended whether they were in place before the amendment comes into force or not.”

     “This means that the Minister can prohibit councils from putting rules regulating GMOs into their plans or require councils to remove rules regulating GMOs from their plans. Simple as that.”
     • Sacha 4.1.1

       9 March 2016 at 9:31 pm

       So it can effectively be retrospective as well? Classy work, Nickster.
   • Lanthanide 4.2

     9 March 2016 at 5:31 pm

     There have only been 3 ‘substantive’ comments outside of mine and the thread it created. I seriously doubt whether my (small) thread would have disrupted any conversation on this article.

     Doesn’t seem like there’s much to talk about for this article – everyone basically agrees.
     • weka 4.2.1

       9 March 2016 at 5:57 pm

       “Doesn’t seem like there’s much to talk about for this article – everyone basically agrees.”

       I think it’s more likely that there are few comments because there are a lot of big conversations going on on ts in the past 24 hours. 7 posts have done up today, and there are still 2 major conversations happening from yesterday. This post went up first thing this morning and I’ve only just gotten to it because of the other posts I was reading and responding to.

       Sometimes when I am about to be the first comment under a post I walk away for a while if my comment is a sidebar like yours was. Sidebars can set the tone for the whole thread. It’s also about respecting the person who put the time and effort into writing the post.
5. Gristle 5

   9 March 2016 at 5:54 pm

   “In the Minister’s opinion” is an exceedingly low test, and one to which no judicial review is possible. Yes it is dictatorial.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   9 March 2016 at 6:38 pm

   National working to destroy our democracy. Where’s the “Democracy Under Attack” headlines in the MSM?
   • saveNZ 6.1

     10 March 2016 at 8:08 am

     +1 Draco
7. bruce rogan 7

   9 March 2016 at 10:00 pm

   These are the powers of ministers of the Third Reich. Why do populations always fall for this stuff?
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     10 March 2016 at 10:18 am

     Bloody good question.
8. saveNZ 8

   10 March 2016 at 9:24 am

   After meddling in Auckland with the SuperCity, Christchurch earthquake recovery, the unity plan fiasco and pretty much every where else and now trying to appoint themselves new powers for RMA….

   You would hope with billions of debt of NZ the government might actually concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing…

   And isn’t what they are doing the opposite of ‘free market’ capitalism when the government steps away from running things because they are considered too incompetent?

   National are running the country like a dictatorship when the government appoints new and extreme powers it itself and it’s cronies to decide overruling current democratic processes…

   Now we have the government giving spies new powers to keep on eye on everyone…. independent from police…
9. Christine Willis 9

   10 March 2016 at 1:19 pm

   Yet another law change. They’re coming through thick and fast now. Thank you for the heads up Mick Savage. They’ll be pushing them through before the elections and before TPPA kicks in, in 2018. So NZ will be teed up to match USA Corporation policies.
   Change the government and change the government system – NOW.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS