Fed Farmers claims a key message in National's win is that voters "have again rejected Water Taxes and a Capital Gains Tax"; want RMA reforms "for NZ to become a primary superpower"

Fed Farmers claims a key message in National's win is that voters "have again rejected Water Taxes and a Capital Gains Tax"; want RMA reforms "for NZ to become a primary superpower"

Content supplied by Federated Farmers

An unprecedented increase in support for the third-term National Party, the best electoral performance since 1899, has delivered a clear mandate for reform of the Resource Management Act says Federated Farmers.

“Vital reforms to the RMA have been stalled for want of support from National’s partners in the last Parliament,” says Dr William Rolleston, Federated Farmers President.

“National put its plans to reform the RMA to the electorate and the electorate have comprehensively responded, yes.  There is no ambiguity or room for conjecture on this."

“With major water reforms underway, via the National Policy Statement on Freshwater, we have three-years for these reforms to bear fruit.  We also have three years to improve the information the public have to become informed by fact instead of fear."

“Some of the electoral majorities are staggering, especially in rural Canterbury, where communities clearly want to control their own destiny.  In urban areas, National won the Party vote in liberal Wellington Central to blue collar electorates like Mt Roskill and Hutt South."

“More pointedly, the electorate have again rejected Water Taxes and a Capital Gains Tax."

“The electorate have also sent a message to political parties that New Zealand’s best response to global climate change is to lead the world on carbon efficiency, instead of just blindly slashing production."

“Agriculture and environment were political footballs this election and it is clear the electorate did not buy the line that farmers are shirking their environmental responsibilities. Political parties must reassess policies that clearly do not chime with the electorate."

“We see the 2014 General Election is a vote for New Zealand to become a primary superpower, not only doubling our primary exports by 2025, but by building resilience in our economy through spring-boarding new technologies and services based on our biological strengths, and by adding value to our primary products."

“This is why we need to invest in, and enable, science and innovation - one thing Federated Farmers will work with the National-led Government on.  Not to mention a land register to end the political circus around foreign ownership."

“Federated Farmers is equally committed to working with Opposition parties in order to help them broaden their support base. We need Opposition parties that farmers would again feel comfortable belonging to."

“The electorate have spoken and farmers look forward to playing our part in a vibrant progressive New Zealand,” Dr Rolleston concluded.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.

8 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

"National put its plans to reform the RMA to the electorate and the electorate have comprehensively responded, yes.  There is no ambiguity or room for conjecture on this."
Dam, missed that referendum, where was that? Would've ticked the "No" box for that.

I voted for dirty rivers and streams that my children and their children won't be able to swim in -NOT!

Well said redcows and James007. Not ALL National voters agree with ALL National policies.
Fed Farmers claim "there is no ambiguity or room for conjecture" that all National voters have voted for the RMA reform.
Party votes will continue to be abused as a mandate for ALL policies until NZ has binding referenda.

National made it clear reform to the RMA was not needed when it issued its Terms of Reference to the Productivity Commission for its inquiry into planning practices.
 
At last someone in central government has woken up to the fact that there is very little wrong with the RMA. The problem is the misuse local government have made of the leislation. In particular the territorial authorities seem to have a strong desire to recreate the now repealed Town and Country Planning Act.

Nail, hammer, head... "The problem is the misuse local government" to generate revenue

Quite right. Adding $100k or more to every section in paperwork alone.

Indeed, Kumbel.  Let's play that ol' broken record one more time:

  • The RMA is devoid of any references to spatial planning as such.
  • The words 'Zone' are in the RMA only in contexts such as 'Exclusive Economic Zone' - maritime stuff - and Clean Air Zones.
  • The whole purpose of the RMA is set out in Sec 5, and the meaning of 'effect' is set out at Sec 3.

The intent was and should be Effect-based:  the wording of Sec 5 :

5 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management

of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

 

And 'effect':

 

3 Meaning of effect

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect includes—

(a) any positive or adverse effect; and

(b) any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) any past, present, or future effect; and

(d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects—

regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes—

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.

 
But, and to our huge detriment, the old-school Spatial Planners, following the British model which has blighted everything it's touched, have persisted with the zoning, boundary-ising and economic distortion-creating practise of drawing squiggles on maps and declaring what can Go On inside said squiggles.
 
So it is now the sad case that, faced with planning documents that can range to thousands of pages, are frequently internally inconsistent, are full of ambiguous phrases, and contain useful sections handing absolute power to unelected minions ("in the opinion of'", "as may be directed by"), it is now necessary, nay, Essential, to employ expensive consultants, experienced in the ways and wiles of said Plans and the Planners, to shepherd one's modest proposal through the Byzantine maze thus created.  Here's a working example, in case y'all think that my colourful descriptions are in fact simply Making Sh..t Up..
 
Oh, and to add Fruit to the Pudding, each such Plan and its set of Planners is limited to a single TLA, and so any proposal which spans TLA's will have one such process (differing in detail and ramifications, of course) per TLA.
 
Oh, and all this is to the Applicant's cost, naturally:  the immortal advice of CCC:  "The charges incurred by the Council in relation to pre-application meetings are payable whether the project proceeds or not. The invoice for any pre-application meeting will be sent at the same time as the record of the meeting."
 
So there. little Applicants. 
 
And we wonder why our build costs and land prices are so high.....