Ministers will be given resource consent powers with fast-track bill

Public Policy / news

Coalition Government rounds out 100 day plan with fast-track consenting law giving Ministers the power to approve significant projects

7th Mar 24, 11:42am by Dan Brunskill

Photo by Andrew Yu on Unsplash

The coalition Government is giving a handful of ministers the power to approve significant infrastructure and construction projects without getting resource consent.

A ‘Fast Track Approvals Bill’ has been approved by Cabinet and will be introduced to Parliament on Thursday afternoon as part of the government's 100 day plan.

It will allow the Ministers of Infrastructure, Regional Development, and Transport to put projects on a fast-track which bypasses the usual consenting process.

The joint Ministers will be able to refer projects to an expert panel which will have a maximum of six months to consider and apply conditions.

Projects with conditions applied will then be sent back to the Ministers to approve or decline. They will also be able to send the project back to the panel for reconsideration.

The panel cannot itself approve or decline projects, merely add conditions to the consent and make a recommendation, and Ministers cannot remove conditions added by the panel.

This is an adaptation of the Labour Government’s covid-19 fast track process, in which Ministers could refer projects to a panel but didn’t have the final decision making power.

Fast-tracking resource consent was a commitment made in the National–New Zealand First coalition agreement.

Shane Jones, a senior NZ First MP and Minister for Regional Development, said in a press release this “one stop shop” for major projects was overdue.

“For too long New Zealanders have had to wait years, even decades, before crucial projects in their regions are approved and consented, and the benefits flow to communities. Our new fast-track regime starts to change this.”

Chris Bishop, the Minister for Resource Management Act Reform and Infrastructure, said the time it takes to get resource consent had more than doubled since 2014 and costs were up 70%.

“We are determined to cut through the thicket of red and green tape holding New Zealand back, make it clear to the world that we are open for business, and build a pipeline of projects around the country to grow the economy and improve our productivity”.

Scheduled projects

Projects can become eligible for the fast track either by referral from the joint Ministers or by being listed as a Schedule 2A project in the legislation.

There are not yet any projects included in the Bill before Parliament this afternoon.

Instead, an independent Fast Track Advisory Group will be set up in the “coming weeks” to advise ministers on what projects should be listed in Schedule 2A and 2B.

Cabinet will ultimately decide which projects are selected and they will be added to the Bill while it is going through the select committee process.

Things that will be eligible for fast-tracking include everything covered by the Resource Management Act, as well as marine consents, archaeological authority, conservation concessions, Wildlife Act approvals, and aquaculture decisions.

But certain projects will not be permitted in the fast lane. These include those on land related to a Treaty of Waitangi settlement, certain activities in the oceans, and anything on conservation reserves.

People with a direct interest in a project which has received consent will be able to challenge the decision in the High Court, but not the general public.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

86 Comments

by finite | 7th Mar 24, 7:07pm 1709791661

Surprise, surprise, the list of projects is not included.

Let the lobbying begin (even if you were not a major donor to the coalition parties)

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 12:12pm 1709766747

Let us never, ever, hear 'FREE MARKET' from these clowns again.

Muldoon without the intelligence....

The background is in the links I put up this morning (BB). Global growth is essentially over; this lot - as described in the links, perfectly - are attempting to kick-start the dead motorbike. Which had been on 'reserve' for some time. Yes, there might be a slosh of fuel left in the tank, but we'd be better asking what the future looks like, and building/triaging for that.

This is an attempt to go back to the future - clown/ideology-driven.

by Flying high | 7th Mar 24, 12:34pm 1709768074

Superb demonstration of the justification for the move

Where are you on Ruataniwha

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 1:39pm 1709771989

Primary ignorance is endemic - chosen continuance of same is intellectually unforgiveable.

How did you go reading the links I put up this morning?

I'm guessing you chose to ignore...

by Flying high | 7th Mar 24, 2:46pm 1709775981

And you sir ignored my question

Still, the use of big vocabulary :) doesn't hide that you are opposed to new projects

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 4:34pm 1709782484

Because it was an illogical question, aimed at reinforcing your particular set of beliefs.

I like whisky - should I then become an alcoholic?

The whole point is that 'new projects are either future-useful and future-maintainable, or they aren't. I'm neither approving or opposing of such, until I see how they measure up to those criteria.

And you've still avoided that link, haven't you?

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/  It points out what the future will look like. Once you've read it, tell me whether XYZ were desirable projects?

by Yvil | 7th Mar 24, 7:34pm 1709793295

I have read your link. I have looked at the 4 graphs which form the pillar of the doomsday message. ALL 4 graphs are pointing upwards or are flat at worst. The author then shows these graphs pointing down in the future to prove their pre-conceived, biased point. It's disappointing that you would post such a link, and truely believe it proves a point, other than one can manipulate graphs in the future to prove any point one desires.

by Flying high | 7th Mar 24, 7:24pm 1709792670

Strong language from minister Jones today something about catastrophising environmentalists. It shouldn't be allowed

I often hear you bemoaning the economy but haven't heard your concise solutions

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 8:32pm 1709796726

Read the links - with more savvy than the prior poster, if that's OK.

He is in print as thinking (?) that we can run society (as we know it, presumably) on high-entropy energy (low-grade heat). So he's sort of discounted himself, if you see what I mean....

And if you haven't heard, you haven't been listening. Hint - the solution which keeps BAU going, let alone propels growth, does not exist. I suspect you have a flawed-logic approach which does assume such is possible? And therefore dismisses anything which doesn't support your wish?

How would you have gone on the Titanic (If I have your approach to reasoning correct)?

by Flying high | 7th Mar 24, 10:48pm 1709804905

Unfortunately your interest article on the weekend was rubbished by many. People smarter than I

Are we all going to have to live self sufficient and subsistence to get by. Is that what you'd have for us.

Yes you are true to your beliefs by living in a house made of recycled materials, is it possible to obtain building consent for such a dwelling.

by rastus1 | 8th Mar 24, 8:31am 1709839867

'Smarter'. Nah, more like head in the sand, fearful, scarred, ignorant.....take your pick.

Meanwhile Shane Jones can now allow bottom trawling, extermination of the few remaining hectors dolphins, mill the rest of the west coast forests and irrigate and pollute the last of our free rivers and plains.

3rd world type stuff.

by linklater01 | 8th Mar 24, 9:30am 1709843406

rastus,

Well, the oleaginous Shane Jones needs to find a future employer when he finally runs out of political parties. If he ever had a moral compass, he lost it long ago.

by Flying high | 8th Mar 24, 10:19am 1709846357

There's a quote "how NZ ruined itself while trying to save the world"

We are a pimple, its no use swimming against the current.

SJ made many points including that catastrophising environmentalists (and nimbys) have weaponised the RMA. I'm inclined to agree

by rastus1 | 8th Mar 24, 12:01pm 1709852471

What ignorance.

Bill Birch would have cut down every accessible beech tree on the West Coast of he had the power this mob are giving themselves.

Exporting beautiful forests as pulp for the Japanese paper industry was his agenda.

You need to read some enviro history of NZ and learn of the vandalism that the greedy ignorant mob have tried before.

You trust a vested interest politician to protect public environmental assets? Stupidity of the highest order.

by Flying high | 8th Mar 24, 12:15pm 1709853318

But you are happy for NZ aotearoa to be a backwater

Birches and Beeches dont get on

by rastus1 | 8th Mar 24, 1:02pm 1709856140

Geography 101

by Baywatch | 8th Mar 24, 4:48pm 1709869739

Ask yourself why tourist's still want to come here - well for now anyhow

by Timmyboy | 7th Mar 24, 2:05pm 1709773509

These guys are the Once-lers looking for the last remaining patch of Truffuler Trees.

They are going to do their best to make sure Freddy doesn't get in the way.

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 4:50pm 1709783451

Hey! It was the NZ voter that chose to turn the country into a polluted, trashed, overcrowded S...hole. If we keep letting religious fundimentalists control the country, we get what we deserve.

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 8:42pm 1709797345

They're not Oncelers, they're Twicelers. When the Limits to Growth started to show up (reducing productivity, in economics parlance; reducing EROEI coupled with encroaching Entropy producing less and less energy efficiencies, in physics terms) they established the Productivity Commission.

It was on a hiding to nothing, in terms of solving the tailing-off of energy efficiencies; the Second Law of Thermodynamics is immutable.

It could have explained the problem; it failed even to identify it.

This is their second attempt to kick-start the GROWTH motorbike - and it is doomed to fail also. The global malaise is intensifying; business cases will be fewer and further between; returns unhedgeable, non-underwriteable. Heck, can't they see where Local Government costs are going? It's happening NOW.

It would be a joke, if it weren't so tragically stupid.

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 11:57am 1709765839

People with a direct interest in a project which has received consent will be able to challenge the decision in the High Court, but not the general public.

I think the intention to re-introduce "standing" is a good one - but not sure why challenges are being heard in the HC as opposed to the Environment Court, that's odd.

And perhaps more importantly, there needs to be some form of legal aide that can be accessed by those with standing. So, that (legal aide provision) should be a parallel regulatory initiative to ensure judicial fairness as a check on what has become solely a function of the use of executive power in substantive/critical decision-making.

Given it is a move away from democratic decision-making in the period of a 'vacuum' created by repeal of the RMA reform program, the executive branch needs to show its support for the fundamentals of democratic decision-making by giving those with standing equitable access to judicial challenge.

by solardb | 7th Mar 24, 12:03pm 1709766238

Cost ? The cost of lawyers with high court experience would be out of reach to many. Narrows down objections, but of course we will be told they had the opportunity to object .

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 1:30pm 1709771413

Exactly. That is why access to a legal aide fund is necessary for those with standing.

by agnostium | 7th Mar 24, 3:54pm 1709780058

But the consequences of some these big projects affect more than the people who are "directly" affected. My kids will be burdened with the additional costs of paying for PPPs, having to suck up the destruction of their natural environment, pay for the additional health costs of the roads first approach. Anyone should be able to challenge the minister's responsible in the courts, especially given their is currently no planning law in place as the coalition repealed it.

This is the opposite of what the coalition stood on, they are centralising power and overriding safeguards.

If the projects have bi-partisan support then maybe there is some justification but having one minister able to override all other interests is very dangerous.

by HouseMouse | 7th Mar 24, 4:12pm 1709781166

Very well put

by makechange | 7th Mar 24, 8:24pm 1709796295

Well put.

Expect plenty of hikoi and direct action with this one

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 9:33pm 1709800411

I don't disagree with any of that, but they have sent a clear signal that standing is back in. How they define it who knows - it will be very difficult legally to define and if they make it too narrow, then there will be challenges all the way to the Supreme Court I suspect.

I fear these characters haven't got any serious intellect/understanding of how the massive complications (and the ill-will) this fast track idea will generate for them.

But hey, if they want to define standing, then good luck to them, but without requisite legal aide/funding of those person(s) with standing, it really is probably the most authoritarian move I've seen in my time here. If those directly affected by a proposal have no voice due to unmanageable cost of litigation/opposition (effectively denying them access to the judicial reconsideration/remedy), then the judiciary itself has been knee-capped too - and that would be a really bad look.

by Hamish | 8th Mar 24, 7:40am 1709836859

At least the news media could run with it if you can't afford to get to the courts.

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 9th Mar 24, 6:40am 1709919601

The RM Act remains in force with its open standing.

Open standing is a significant advance on the restricted standing under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977.

In my experience, arguments over standing, applicants trying to 'king-hit' would-be submitters, is a big diversion from addressing the actual issues.

The Fast Track Bill intentionally prevents most people and groups from participating in the proposed donations for consents regime.

by Kate | 9th Mar 24, 9:02am 1709928156

Sure it does, for all but these fast tracked projects.

The thing about standing is that it might be appropriate for more minor consents - i.e., truly local and/or neighbourhood-situated proposals.

But, not these major, nationally significant projects that affect/threaten ecosystems as a whole (such as seabed mining; dams, etc.).

That said, IF the government intends to introduce standing for these major, nationally significant projects - then my point is that the people who they "deem" to have standing will need some form of legal aide given the only recourse to a bad decision by a Minister(s) is the High Court.

To deny the public a neutral arbiter (i.e., the judiciary) is authoritarianism at its finest.

by HouseMouse | 7th Mar 24, 11:57am 1709765874

Cue application and rubber stamping of Winton’s ‘Sunfield’ development proposal

by morepork | 7th Mar 24, 12:00pm 1709766036

I'm not opposed to this in general, but is giving Shane Jones off all people the power to skip the regular consenting process really what we want. Not that Simeon Road Brown appears that much better.

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 4:54pm 1709783661

Don't worry, Shane wil be too busy watching rented porn on behalf of the taxpayer, to get much work done.

by Hamish | 8th Mar 24, 7:42am 1709836953

The last Labour government are looking quite smart by comparison. Just give him a handful of billion and run along go pick some projects around the regions to fund.

by Palmtree08 | 8th Mar 24, 10:32am 1709847167

"smart by comparison"? That was always going to happen. The hard right are soaked in the ideology of the supremacy of man and whatever is destroyed is in service to the greater good, as ordained by their deity, Lord Market. Until there's nothing left!

by Flying high | 7th Mar 24, 12:04pm 1709766274

"Red tape killer"

Not if you are small to medium scale ;)

by ChrisOfNoFame | 7th Mar 24, 12:35pm 1709768114

So much for Luxon's vision of letting the locals decide, ay?

Lot's of fast tracked roads, ay? (we'll not see any alternatives to roads under this lot.)

So one easy hurdle to jump for big business, while everyone else (where the bulk of the building is done) gets left stuck in RMA hell?

How long before we see corruption surfacing?

Who gets to appoint the 'panels'? And from where will they come from - NACTF supporter lists?

by huttman | 7th Mar 24, 12:44pm 1709768694

but the idea is that those projects have national significance, hence not just a local matter.

by solardb | 7th Mar 24, 1:20pm 1709770807

National Party significance, more like .

by huttman | 7th Mar 24, 2:50pm 1709776249

I hope you are saying those projects only benefits National Voters, because that'll be nuts.

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 6:17pm 1709788662

Depends how deep you want to dig into the issue I guess? On a basic, finite planet sort of level, these industrialist nuts think tearing our life support systems apart is significant/important stuff to do. On a personal level none of these projects benefit me, or logic, for that matter. But then, I'm not a NACT voter.

by agnostium | 7th Mar 24, 3:55pm 1709780152

If they are of National significance they should be able to be challenged by anyone in the Nation, not just "directly impacted".

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 9th Mar 24, 6:43am 1709919790

national or regional significance, not just national party significance.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 7th Mar 24, 12:47pm 1709768833

7HouseLuxon is a Corporate Big Biz man - I believe that Unilever and AirNZ are his only roles? His mates are the likes of John Key (Chairman of ANZ, investment banking background...)

Cant see any start ups, small or medium businesses getting a look in for 4 years. He doesnt understand other worlds.

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 1:39pm 1709771943

Roads are hardly the main issue/target of this fast track. They are government projects - well funded and so in most cases the amount spent by the funders (government agencies) on mitigating social and environmental harm is substantial. In other words, the government goes out of its way to inject fairness into its proposals.

The big issue for this type of fast track executive decision-making has more to do with private sector proposals.

Expect a boom in aquaculture applications; mining applications; irrigation/dam proposals; waste dumping proposals; incineration proposals; new marine and marina developments - that sort of thing. Wellington Airport is likely to get its runway extension (as I think that was turned down last time?). There will be a plethora of private sector applications - as the sector will figure that all the costs associated with mitigation of social/environmental harm will largely disappear under the new process.

by Hamish | 7th Mar 24, 2:03pm 1709773398

My recollection is that at the start of John Key's run, Gerry Brownlee was mooting gold mining on Great Barrier island. And after the public backlash backed down pretty quickly.

It'll be interesting to see the reception they get if they start heading down this track again.

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 2:15pm 1709774113

That'll be exactly the direction they are heading - might as well borrow Trump's slogan, "drill baby drill".

Shame they haven't been a bit more open about it/what they expect we will see as a result of this fast-track. My guess is that everyone thinks they are doing it for roads - and to my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. This is an open invitation to resource extractors and users of the near shore ocean surfaces.

I'm not against all development of our environment - for example during Nick Smith's time he turned down a proposal for light rail (or something similar) through to Milford Sound which would cut through the pristine forest in Fiordland. I was more for than against that as it would have had such immense tourism benefits - and indeed many more people would be able to experience that pristine back country. My thought was, as long as it was quiet and low impact (narrow) and electric powered, then a private sector capital funder should have been welcomed in the National Park..

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 6:22pm 1709788953

So you don't believe the tiny part of the planet left aside to exist with semi minimal human disturbance, should be left alone? Aren't millions of tourists already too much?

by HouseMouse | 7th Mar 24, 6:50pm 1709790655

Agree, horrid idea

by Kate | 7th Mar 24, 9:47pm 1709801220

Fiordland National Park is a large area, so the proposal was nothing like developing an estuary, for example. The developments 'footprint' on the overall landscape would have been minimal.

And if planes keep flying into the future, then tourism is less harmful to the environment than extractive industries and dairy (in my opinion). And we need to earn our way somehow. Thing is, tourism only works well if there is the infrastructure and capacity to handle the numbers. Queenstown is a nightmare. And there isn't that capacity on the road to Milford at the moment either. Lot's of work/planning to do to up our game in this regard.

We have already recognised over-crowding problems on some of our Great Walks as well and there is a strong will and intention to fix that by limiting permits/numbers.

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 9:52pm 1709801548

So you are recommending the "Build more roads to fix congestion" principle?

by Kate | 8th Mar 24, 9:15am 1709842549

No, build more mass transport - preferably mass transport fueled by renewable energy.

by linklater01 | 8th Mar 24, 9:48am 1709844505

Palmtree,

If I lived near the site of a proposed mine, I doubt if I would be particularly happy, but step back and look at the bigger picture. Modern society exists courtesy of what we extract from the ground-not just fossil fuels, but all the metals and minerals that support it.

Is there not an element of hyprocrisy in not wanting to have any of that mining here, as long as it is done somewhere else?

by Palmtree08 | 8th Mar 24, 10:43am 1709847832

So you aren't prepared to look at the need for mining in the first place? Mining is extractive, ie, you mine it, it's gone. The devastation left behind essentially permanant in human terms. This whole human project of plague like growth, for the sake of......... growth?, is the issue.

This project goes one of only two ways, exploit every resource and expel it as waste into our living environment, to fuel some weird unsustainable ideology, or scale the human project waaaaay back and preserve a sustainable human civilisation beyond the next few decades.

by Te Kooti | 7th Mar 24, 2:11pm 1709773893

Well articulated Kate.

I would consider this their first meaningful policy, I like it in theory however I can see it being abused to reward party lobbyists. So you might get a munting great fish farm parked off your beach with no right of appeal. Still, greenies have been holding back parts of Coromandel so lets rip in some marina's and dredge the harbours, we'll need to be quick though. If you don't want development there is always the Chathams and Stewart island.

by Grattaway | 7th Mar 24, 3:08pm 1709777313

I was told that there was enough gold in the Coromandel harbour mud to pay for the dredging and the proposed new wharf -cleaning that harbour up would be a good outcome

by Te Kooti | 7th Mar 24, 3:31pm 1709778713

That's why I dislike greenies so much. A wharf/marina would drastically reduce traffic on the roads and C02 with it. It would bring investment and employment and mean their kids don't have to leave the area to find employment. The entire coastline would remain pristine otherwise, they are just envious and backwards.

by Timmyboy | 7th Mar 24, 3:58pm 1709780304

Oh for gods sake. You don't like greenies because they get in they way of your "growth forever" fantasy.

And at least be honest with yourself. More investment and employment in the area would lead to more traffic not less.

by Te Kooti | 7th Mar 24, 4:07pm 1709780865

If you believe a marina/wharf is a "growth forever" fantasy then you could suck the joy out a 6 year old's birthday party.

by Timmyboy | 7th Mar 24, 4:41pm 1709782898

Ah 6. It's a great age. A time where youngsters start to develop critical thinking skills and observing their surroundings with the benefit of a little education.

When's your party?

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 6:09pm 1709788185

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 4:51pm 1709783515

Invalid comment. Worse, an irrational comment.

Yes, a marina proposal - presumably a pre-European traditional marina - must be a part of growth (it wasn't there before; end story).

Whether the poster was happy or sad, or those who read their post were happy or sad, is irrelevant. Don't try the lame trick of diverting-via-emotion (there's quite enough of that hereabouts, already.

So here's my challenge: Be mature. Read these (complementary) links. Then come back and have a decent, logic-based discussion about appropriate infrastructure.

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1887-1.html

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/02/unsustainable-goose-chases/

See you after that lot. :)

by solardb | 7th Mar 24, 7:00pm 1709791250

Marina might not be too bad, but the same process could allow a opencast coalmine in the coromandel Harbour area. Or in your backyard.

Coromandel town is the last bastion of the old coromandel. Whitiangia is now a suburb of Auckland, has a marina and waterways. It is what it is, I was against the marina, but the marina itself didn't turn out to bad. Then the town developed around it, horrible now.

by Hamish | 8th Mar 24, 7:45am 1709837121

Yeh if I was to take our kid along for a nostalgic road trip on the holiday spots we used to go to, Whitianga definitely won't be on the list. What were they thinking?

by Yvil | 7th Mar 24, 1:01pm 1709769694

A great move by the government to help to GET SHIT DONE !

by JimboJones | 7th Mar 24, 1:13pm 1709770399

Depends if it is actually SHIT they are doing.

by HouseMouse | 7th Mar 24, 1:49pm 1709772584

But at what cost?

for example, a big new greenfield development like Sunfield will likely put upward pressure on the rates you and me pay

by ChrisOfNoFame | 7th Mar 24, 2:23pm 1709774613

Ah! ... But will it be good shit (with a solid business case behind it) or bad shit (only pandering to donors and/or based solely on ideological grounds)?

by Timmyboy | 7th Mar 24, 2:26pm 1709774770

If you want SHIT, go swim at an Auckland beach.

Take a look around you and ask the following question. How is economic "growth" benefiting you?

I was a child living in Auckland during the 1970's and all I've seen since then is.... more people, more pollution, more congestion...and yes..MORE SHIT.

The only thing I see LESS of is nature.

I went snorkeling on the Shore in the same spot I used to as a child the weekend before last. The fish have reduced and have been replaced by silt. Truly upsetting..but yay!...we had "growth"!!

Truly a shit-show.

by Yvil | 7th Mar 24, 6:21pm 1709788890

You must be a fan of Mies v d Rohe then Timmy, "less is more"

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 6:26pm 1709789210

Thumbs up there Tim. These extrativist nuts won't be happy until the entire biosphere has been turned into digital dollars for spending in their alternative universe.

by JimboJones | 7th Mar 24, 1:15pm 1709770553

I think the East West link has resource consent dependent on the existing cycling infrastructure being rebuilt. Considering National have removed most of the cycling budget and mandated that cycling cannot be tacked onto road projects, it would be hard for that project to continue. So it will probably be one of their very important projects we need to make Auckland worse.

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 2:20pm 1709774433

Cycleways and EVs were the right answer to the wrong question.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-02-28/unsustainable-goose-chase…

Economic Growth, on the other hand, is the wrong answer to EVERY question.

by Pat.T | 7th Mar 24, 3:37pm 1709779044

The port of Tauranga has been trying to get approval since 2018 to extend its container wharf, is it a satisfactory situation.

If the current government don't do much in this term they will be criticised.

It appears that they are intending to make it easier for projects to go ahead

I'm sure when NZ was developed in the turn of the century the movers and shakers didn't have to put up with the current BS.

NEGATIVE people don't own and run a successful business.

by Timmyboy | 7th Mar 24, 4:13pm 1709781209

Yes those lucky early settlers didn't have to deal with negative pesky greenies telling them that introducing rats, stoats, rabbits etc., chopping down most of the native bush, killing whales and seals and dumping toxic sludge and cow shit all over the show was a bad idea.

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 4:59pm 1709783948

'successful business' is an interesting phrase, is it not? Perhaps the oxymoron of all time.

All 'business does, physically, is turn high-grade energy and concentrated resources, into low-grade heat and dispersed waste. On a finite planet, there's only one way that ends; a pile of worthless proxy and an unliveable habitat.

Rich but nothing to buy, rich but dead. Brilliant. They're obviously so far above us intellectually...

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 6:29pm 1709789388

It's easy to imagine being intellectual when only having half a brain to work with.

by WestieAJ | 7th Mar 24, 4:57pm 1709783843

I smell bacon

by K.W. | 7th Mar 24, 5:51pm 1709787092

You mean like maybe approving new supermarket sites so we can actually get some competition from companies like Costco? Or a market entry from companies like Aldi?

by powerdownkiwi | 7th Mar 24, 6:13pm 1709788397

We're eating our way through fossil fuels. Many calories of the latter to one of the former. They are a finite resource, without them there would be 5-6 billion less on the planet - and that's unsustainable.

Which means that what we 'pay' for food, is far and away too little.

Perspective...

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 6:32pm 1709789572

Perhaps we could go back to actual competion, when there are many small local businesses, employing local people, instead of this global economic monster that's been created for eating the planet?

by meh | 8th Mar 24, 1:23pm 1709857418

Or we could evolve to cooperation truly serving each other ethically and responsibly. Other ways suggest serving the other (which includes Nature herself as a sentient being) is serving oneself, but that would be the antithesis to our current ways of unfettered self interest apparently raising others up.

by MLSmith1 | 7th Mar 24, 7:54pm 1709794492

About bloody time!

by Palmtree08 | 7th Mar 24, 9:54pm 1709801670

Because industrialists stuffing the biosphere has been such a success so far.

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1765393958803517447/photo/1

by sharetrader | 7th Mar 24, 11:12pm 1709806351

this government is starting to go down the muldoon track, when you have someone signing his email as deputy pm from may 2025 the old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

they are not even attempting to put up valid arguments for policy or follow proper process so people can have a say and make better laws, now they are already acting like a 3rd term government and saying we know best and will do what we want our way. my personal opinion is both minor parties will get punished next election for the way they are going about things, i think national can-do labour and pick up that support as people see that the dog with two tails is wagging too much and best just to have the dog.

by Hamish | 8th Mar 24, 7:48am 1709837302

Maybe they don't care if they are only here for one term.