More on RMA changes
just got this file, and inside there are, in my opinion some worrying trend.
Since the RMA nobody, no political parties have changed the definition of the word "Environment", it's the footstone of the legislation, change it would mean a new law is created. Well I guess that's why National wants to change it, that's the most easy way to divert the way we were heading without abolishment of the whole law.
So for those who are not very familiar with the RMA, here's current definition of "Environment":
Environment includes:
(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b)all natural and physical resources; and
(c)Amenity values; and
(d)the social, economic, aestheic and cultural condition of which are affected by those matters
Second part of (a) is most vulnerable to the next law change. Act would definitely like to see it removed, National ... don't know, old guards like to see it go, don't know much about how John Key take on this issue.
Some pats in (d) are also vulnerable.
I think for most people, the question "whether we are part of the environment" should be a no brainer. The real issue here is whether Resource Management Act should cover people like us - well go and check the purpose of the RMA:
Sustainable management means managing the use, development ... which enables people and communities to provide for their social, eocnomic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while ...
:)
Another strange thing regarding RMA from Nats' policy is about the resource consent. If a council did not process it on time, then it's free. I don't want to spend too much time on this, because you don't need a brainy Chinese kid, even a dumb one can tell you council can simply use gibberish excuses to decline the consent application before exceeds the the statutory timeframe, not to mention there are also some clauses that allow councils to extend deadline, legally.
To get the job done, you either exploit people's labour, or pay enough.
