Govt doesn’t have the numbers for RMA reform

May 20th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Government coalition partners have successfully stopped an overhaul of planning laws.

The Maori Party and UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne teamed up to oppose reforms of the Resource Management Act (), saying it placed economic growth ahead of environmental protection.

National needed either party’s vote to get the legislation over the line.

This afternoon, Prime Minister John Key confirmed negotiations had stalled and he had “parked up” the reforms until after the general election in September.

“I think it is very unlikely we will introduce the RMA bill before the election,” he said.

“I think we will campaign on what we want to do and see what the makeup [of Parliament] looks like, whether we are the Government after the election. I’ve decided to park it up.”

This is very disappointing as further reform is definitely needed. But a reality of MMP, that governments do not always get the numbers.

Hopefully the election will deliver a result that will allow the RMA reforms to proceed, so that it strikes a better balance.

Tags:

37 Responses to “Govt doesn’t have the numbers for RMA reform”

  1. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Hopefully the election will deliver a result that will allow the RMA reforms to proceed

    Hopefully including a DCM for Dunne.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Maybe National should stop putting soft candidates in Ohariu.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. JMS (330 comments) says:

    National/Act had the numbers from 2008 to 2011, when they weren’t dependent on that utter waste-of-space Dunne.

    Why didn’t they do something then? The near catastrophic results of the RMA during Labour’s nine years were obvious to anyone with a brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Thanks Dung.

    Guess he doesnt want to upset labour too much. After all he will jup to the grand coalition if it will save his pay cheque and bene’s

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    Well this allows John Key to say ” we are trying to get stumbling blocks / time delays out of the way to get more houses built but no one supports the moves to change the RMA to allow that to happen”

    I think Labour realise this ( probably too late) as Cunliffe is now saying they would work with the Govt. on some parts of the bill.
    Sorry DC the stable door closed before you started thinking ! ( the door will open again after the election –we’ll see what you say the )

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. JMS (330 comments) says:

    Maybe National should stop putting soft candidates in Ohariu.

    Exactly.

    The nationwide possum-fan-club is too small to bring in another MP from the list, and too large to create an overhang.

    Which means there is no net gain to National by having Dunne in Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Matthew Hooton (131 comments) says:

    This is very embarrassing for Amy Adams. When she became a minister, she was a given two tasks – reform the RMA and implement the copper tax. She has failed on both.
    And now, of course, she is trying to introduce a new Green Party TV tax! See http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/recycling-tax-electronics-considered-5974241?autoStart=true

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (13,777 comments) says:

    Dunne and the racist Stone Agers, the good-for-nothing MPs, other than filling their own pockets.

    Which means there is no net gain to National by having Dunne in Parliament.

    None whatsoever.
    The fantasist Dunne should be ditched. Go ahead Mr B. Hudson, make my day!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    I would think that half of UFs party membership would be hunters so no surprise really.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. JMS (330 comments) says:

    This is very embarrassing for Amy Adams.

    If she even cares.
    Probably wasn’t the best idea giving those assignments to one of the more socialist National MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,777 comments) says:

    @Mathew Hooton: Isn’t Labour Lite the party of lower taxes? The rapacity of these pinkos is insatiable.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    …. teamed up to oppose reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA), saying it placed economic growth ahead of environmental protection.

    I’ll leave those larger arguments for another time as all I wanted was not to have to comply with the RMA simply because the peak of my garage jutted out by 20cm into the RMA defined air-space boundary. A thousand dollars worth of processing and paperwork later later I got approval with no changes required.

    Thanks government.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    we will campaign on what we want to do and see what the makeup [of Parliament] looks like, whether we are the Government after the election.

    Well National openly campaigned on asset sales last election, but that didn’t stop the biggest moan-fest since the Association for Whingeing Poms was double-booked with the Teething Toddlers at 5pm Playgroup.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Tinkering around the edges ain’t reform.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter.
    The RMA put a building line in place that restriced your garage?
    You sure you dont mean your Councils District Plan?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nuwanda (83 comments) says:

    “This is very embarrassing for Amy Adams. When she became a minister, she was a given two tasks – reform the RMA and implement the copper tax. She has failed on both.
    And now, of course, she is trying to introduce a new Green Party TV tax! See http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/recycling-tax-electronics-considered-5974241?autoStart=true

    Yup, who needs the Greens when the Nats are in town? The linked article is revealing when you read between the lines: it’s obviously being welcomed by the companies that do the recycling. Why? Because they’ll get a subsidy/fee for the work they already do. This is just another example of sticking your snout into the public trough. And the Nats play happily along. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    If memory serves, Peter Dunne was one of the Ministers responsible for drafting the RMA in the first place, back when he was in Labour. So it might not be such a surprise that he isn’t keen to amend it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne was briefly a minister in 1990 but I believe the RMA was mainly the work of Geoffrey Palmer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    It was Palmer’s baby, but he didn’t do the whole thing himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. virtualmark (1,528 comments) says:

    Can someone please remind me why National doesn’t go full out to win the Ohariu electorate?

    Just what exactly does Peter Dunne offer National that one of their own MPs wouldn’t??

    Why tolerate the bouffant when he embarrasses you (re GCSB & Andrea Vance) and sides with the Opposition??? It’s not like he brings in a big party vote that gives you an extra seat or two.

    Really, anyone? Anyone understand why the Nats are so cozy with Dunne????

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Changeiscoming (189 comments) says:

    Good to see MMP working as it should. The RMA needs reform without doubt but the government needs consensus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    virtualmark.
    The reason is called MMP.
    Dunne gives the Nats a free seat, same as ACT in Epsom.
    Electoral suicide to seriously contest either of those seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lolitasbrother (697 comments) says:

    People have written elsewhere that the RMA was the most destructive piece of legislation ever foisted on New Zealand .
    It was enacted finally by that poofter bureaucrat Simon Upton.
    He and Geoffrey Palmer should be hung up side down and we throw rotten fruit at them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Dunne gives the Nats a free seat, same as ACT in Epsom.
    Electoral suicide to seriously contest either of those seats.

    UF & ACT used to give National (or Labour for UF) a block of seats. Both parties destroyed that advantage and now but for the grace of National go they. Anyone know who number 2 in United Future is? (i’m talking about the man in the street not politics nerds). So lets say we put someone from National who doesn’t suck in. Do the people of Ohariu really love Dunne that much or is it the Banks situation where they’re tactically voting? Dunne has had his day and now offers nothing to National at all except the possibility of flip flopping to Labour-Greens-Mana-Dotcom if the prevailing wind changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (13,777 comments) says:

    Anyone know who number 2 in United Future is?

    Peter George? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wiseowl (895 comments) says:

    The only thing that needs changing is the removal of all reference to special privilege for certain people.

    What National are trying to do is destroy what is a misunderstood piece of legislation that originally was mostly OK but has been ruined by continual tinkering.

    Comments about seeking a mandate from the election are BS.You can’t vote based on one piece of legislation .Appalling politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Colville says:

    Dunne gives the Nats a free seat, same as ACT in Epsom.
    Electoral suicide to seriously contest either of those seats.

    That was true for a long time in Epsom, now I think you couldn’t be certain but given that uncertainty it’s probably best to stick with Plan A and not risk splitting the right / centre right vote.

    But it hasn’t been true in Ohariu for a long time. As JMS notes above, the nationwide support for UF is far, far too small to bring in another MP from the list, but too large to create an overhang. If National ran a strong but “safe” candidate with the clear message that, if the blue rinse set try getting bolshie and back the bouffant they’ll find they’ve got either a) a Labour MP (remembering it was Chauvel, not Shanks, who came second in the last election) or b) an isolated backbencher, they could do it.

    But their candidate needs to focus on eroding Dunne’s support and thus run a campaign which is quite different to that which would happen in almost any other electorate – something more like a US campaign where a relentless focus on negatives has successfully dislodged many a seemingly impregnable incumbent.

    And the best part is, no matter how negative they went, if it failed and Dunne got back in, he’d still come crawling on his hands and knees if they had a chance of forming government with him. Just as, regardless of how easy they go on him, if Labour hold the baubles he’ll be wearing out the knees of his pants in their Leader’s office.

    I had just got such a campaign under way in 1996 when I opted to stand against him rather than in my natural constituency of Hutt South, where I was born and raised… I just pulled all the press clippings of him castigating Bolger as a retarded country bumpkin, read them out, then unfurled an enlarged newspaper photo of Dunne, beaming from sideburn to sideburn, sat beside Bolger at the Cabinet table. My “message” was simply, “if he’s for sale that cheaply, he’ll sell you out just as cheap”. If National fancy running such a campaign against him now, they know where to find me… :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Rex.
    National run a strong contender and split the center right vote, Labour (supported by Greens tactical votes) slip thru the gap.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    National will leave Dunne alone in Ohariu – it’s the same as a safe seat for them and there is always the outside chance that UF may repeat their 2002? effort and scrape up another MP or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    Time for National to put up a strong candidate in Ohariu. Dunne is not playing the game and needs to be retired.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    I agree Peter! Time for his constituents to tell him enough is enough!

    I can’t see how hunters would be worried about more houses being built anyway??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Colville:

    Always a possibility, but less of one if Key rules out doing a deal with him post-election. That takes his trump card out of the deck. A good negative campaign, aimed essentially at embarrassing the blue rinse set for having been duped for so long and then turning that embarrassment to anger against Dunne, would do the rest.

    But if you don’t want any risk in your equation, if I were Key I’d sidle up to Cunliffe in the lobby (thus ensuring deniability) and say “Neither of us like the idea of being held to ransom by this vacuous dilettante so what say I flip you for it… loser stands a complete numpty, winner stands their best candidate. Then next election we make it a real contest”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,284 comments) says:

    The RMA needs to be repealed entirely, and as Jamie Whyte says, replaced by a very slim law based on the law of nuisance.

    The facts that: 1) The idiot Palmer wrote it; and 2) it needed to be amended the year after it was passed by an amending Act that was longer than the original says it all…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    The setback is what happens when you rely on a Possum for a vote when he suspects giving it may affect possum habitat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    1. Stop all development anywhere near me. 79% of Americans want no new development projects in their communities. Now that does not mean they are against development. They are not. They just do not want it anywhere near them. They want new jobs, local tax dollars and new shopping opportunities, but it should be over there and not right here.
    2. All development is political.84% of American say a candidate’s position on development is important when they decide for whom they will vote, so development takes an increasingly prominent role in local politics
    3. The system is broken. 64% of Americans say the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the process unfair. They believe the game is rigged for developers and politicians and it makes them angry and frustrated.
    6. Traffic is destroying our quality of life. From our experience in projects across three countries, it is the Achilles heel of most projects, and it is the item most likely to scare residents and mobilize opposition. It is very hard to address  because no one believes mitigation measures will actually work.

    9. Jobs and new tax dollars are not enough. It used to be that politicians ran for reelection bragging about the economic development projects they brought home to their districts. They took credit for the new jobs, tax revenue and local investment that came from new development, but that is gone now. It is not enough anymore. Now it is far more politically advantageous to stand with the opponents of development and fight against new projects.
    We have seen the landscape for development fundamentally changed over the past 20 years, and it is increasingly difficult to get anything approved.

    http://ht.ly/vBOqX

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    David Garrett (5,364 comments) says:
    May 20th, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    The RMA needs to be repealed entirely, and as Jamie Whyte says, replaced by a very slim law based on the law of nuisance.
    ………

    The market forces that push developers and landowners to build “more” and “bigger” have cropped up in some of the swankiest neighborhoods in Portland. So far, neighbors who oppose the projects are finding scant legal recourse to prevent the changes.

    http://www.planetizen.com/node/67796

    Developers can move forward with the proposed Ashby high-rise after a much-anticipated ruling Thursday by a judge who agreed the tower is a nuisance for its immediate neighbors but concluded there was no way he could stop the project or determine a more appropriate alternative.

    “If an injunction is granted, there is no question but that it will have a chilling effect on other developments in Houston,” wrote state District Judge Randy Wilson, a stance that drew mostly positive comments from the development community for eliminating uncertainty for groups considering future projects.
    “A 21-story residential development is believed by the neighbors (and the jury) to be too big,” Wilson said in the ruling. “However, this court has zero evidence with which to find what size is just right.”

    Wilson also used the opportunity to raise questions over the city’s long-standing objection to government zoning, a recalcitrance that he said is “often touted as part of the DNA of the city.”

    More mid- and high-rise projects are sprouting throughout the urban core, he noted.

    “As Houston becomes more and more urbanized and denser, perhaps Houston should reconsider whether zoning is appropriate for this City,” Wilson wrote. “That is not for this Court to decide.”

    Will appeal damages

    Buckhead welcomed the ruling but said it would appeal the monetary damages. It also said construction will resume as soon as possible.

    “With hundreds of new Houstonians moving to our city each day, this type of urban housing option is becoming increasingly more necessary and desirable,” the company said in a statement. “We remain concerned about the dangerous precedent that any fully entitled and lawfully permitted real estate project may be penalized by the awarding of damages.”

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Ashby-ruling-allows-high-rise-to-go-forward-5447064.php?cmpid=

    Looks like Nuisance laws aren’t enough.
    Population increase is government policy (in whose interests)?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. G152 (341 comments) says:

    Horan might be a safe vote until the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote